The URL can be used to link to this page

03/02/1998 - 4812OFFICTAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 2,1998 - � � G1YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COIJNCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Manday, Mcuc.ch 2, 1998 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER La�� Z�,� ' � � `� ;l �. j�C.,;�� %,o� r' a'�...L' �� i�� i� (/i/ �LL./ /Q!`1 /'+�, �" �z l-( G� ;' r. f l�" %'/C ��'� ` l 3`— / S— � � CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatrnent, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, narional origin, sex, disability, age, mazital status, sexual orientation or status with regazd to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of February 23, 1998 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Authorizing City Manager, William W. Burns, to Sign the Grant Agreement End Grant ("The Grant ContracY') for the Youth Initiative Grant as Representative of the City ofFridley ...................................................................................... 1.01 - 1.02 Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1998 ....................................................................................... 2.01 - 2.27 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 3 OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Consideration of ltems Not on Agenda (15 minutes). NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety, and Adopting a New Chapter 407, Entitted "Right-of-Way Management" and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" ................................................ Preliminary Plat Request, PS #98-01, by Holiday Stationstores, 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, Generally � Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ........................................ Special Use Permit, SP #98-01, by Holiday Stationstores, Inc., to Allow a Motor Vehicle Fuel Operation and a Motor Vehicle Wash Establishment to be Located in the Northwest Corner of the Holiday Plus Site, Generally Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ........................................ 8.01 - 8.33 9.01 - 9.08 10.01 = 10.18 s FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: 1998 PAGE 4 Variance Request, VAR #98-03, by Holiday Stationstores, Inc., to Reduce the Front Yard Setback from 80 Feet to 66 Feet; to Reduce the Side Corner Setback from 80 Feet to 49 Feet; to Reduce the Parking Area Setback from 20 Feet to 9 Feet Along the Entire Length of 57�' Avenue; all to Allow the Construction of a 3,690 Square Foot Station Store, Five Gas Pumps, Car Wash, and Reconfiguration of the Parking Area at the Holiday Plus Site, Generally Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................... 11.01 - 11.09 Approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Holiday Companies, Generally Located at 250 - 57"' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) .................................................... 12.01 - 12.14 Site Plan and Master Plan Approval Amendment, MPA #98-01, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., 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 Ten-Acre Site at the Western End of the Fridley Executive Center Property, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of I-694 and Highway 65 (Ward 1) ....................................................................................... 13.01 - 13.26 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Preliminary Plat Request, P.S. #98-02, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., to Create a Ten-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 at the Fridley Executive Center Property, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of I-694 and Highway65 (Ward 1) .......................................................................... Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-02, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., to Permit Nine-Foot Wide Parking Spaces, and 14.01 - 14.07 Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-03, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., to Permit a Portion of the Drive Aisle of the Parking Area Within an R-1 Zoning District at the Fridley Executive Center Property, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of I-694 and Highway 65 (Ward 1) ....................................................... 15.01 - 15.10 Informal Status Reports ....................................................................... 16.01 ADJOURN. � � QTY Of FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCI� MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 �� The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in iu services, programs, or activiries because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regazd to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabiliries who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ciiy Council Meeting of February 23, 1998 ., , , ..__ _ , ,�, ; / ��_�� <r�� ,i � � � _-� - �-E� �-��-- / �� j� � APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Authorizing City Manager, William W. Burns, to Sign the Grant Agresment End Grant ("The Grant Contract") for the Youth Initiative Grant as Representative of the City ofFridley ....:................................................................................. � ��' ��. C` `-� c �-� (� / `� lt. f ��/.y��9 !` ✓'��. -�- t� �Y j�'�j�.� �� 1 �- - � 1.01 - 1.02 Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1998 ` ° 2.01 - 2.27 ........................�;��r.�.�............................................... FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2_ 19ss APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED,�_ PAGE 2 Receive Bids and Award Contract for Hackmann Avenue Water Line Repair Project No. 317 and Hackmann Circle Street Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1998 - 1 ................................................................................. 3.01 - 3.03 / `��+� `--Z�� '� ��L.�r-.�L--•R•�' c' r-a.., G�.�....�-'C` �' _�� . i / : '-��W„ � /�-�(��'.�.... ��'-�.<-{,..� ��-�_� . G n / �'y--��--r-=��' `,,�`=-�-L �? _ ��? �CJ_ Receive Bids and Award Contract for Repair of Weli No. 2, Project No. 316 ........................................ 4.01 - 4.03 � / i�CC 4.( �. f� � Ga,..--� r--�i( r.�•�L''s � Z/ ,j _��L" ./�..✓L�-.�._.. i . L,�-�.-C�--r/ ..�,_.. -��._ �l/_�...c" �� ,A�—G"`'�. � �� __...,� � � . - � � .� � /�/ � � Claims : .............`�1:::::..".'. :�:� �..—'. ................. 5.01 ............................. l : � >'� �� _ Licenses : ................ �:: �f:............................................................ 6.01 - 6A2 � ` � ,�'� � z�- e-�� Estimates: .............,,�� ....................:.......................................... 7.01 - 7.19 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: � �C�. ({ ��- ��_ �,�' �-� : y__z._.jti �. �,�zr.>�.- °°-�.,.�.�.,.-�-�..-L� ��2Ke._ 7 T � � r FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2. 1998 OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Consideration of Items Not on Agenda (15 minutes). , ��1;L> ,�.��_��- �,_ �___.. NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety, and Adopting a New Chapter 407, .- Entitled "Right-of-Way Management" and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" ................................................ 8.01 - 8.33 .� r,,� � ,�_�� Preliminary Plat Request, PS #98-01, by Holiday St�tionstores, 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, Generally � Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ......................................:. 9.01 - 9.08 �� , .� �,i�' �/ -� ��-�-�. ; !��- _� � Special Use Permit, SP #98-01, by Holiday Stationstores, Inc., to Allow a Motor Vehicle Fuel Operation and a Motor Vehicle Wash Establishment to be Located in the Northwest Corner of the Holiday Plus Site, Generally Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ........................................ 10.01 -10.18 _ - -� `� ;� l �� ; � -z- t �`%� � � �� _ / � �...L-i,ti-� �, i , � , � ti� ;� � � _.,,.___.. . ' S�/ /� ,�J c � _ � _ /�a-r-,i �� jt,c,.i��Z G�—u„��_ C . l � l �� /"/� � — ��.{ ��— � .� ` l�P9�!\� Pn\/ /\�T\i A ��v�.� � v� � r�.vv�r�.��. mCG I IIVC� Vr' MAKGt1 1. 799�3 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Variance Request, VAR #98-03, by Holiday Stationstores, Inc., to Reduce the Front Yard Setback from 80 Feet to 66 Feet; to Reduce the Side Corner Setback from 80 Feet to 49 Feet; to Reduce the Parking Area Setback from 20 Feet to 9 Feet Along the Entire Length of 57�' Avenue; all to Allow the Construction of a 3,690 Square Foot Station Store, Five Gas Pumps, Car Wash, and Reconfiguration of the Parking Area at the Holiday Plus Site, Generally Located at 242 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (1Nard 3) ..........................:.:........................ . . ��., _ _.. � _ � �, r.�t. .�(' �.t,.�G�'1-'- � �`% ' �Z-� �.-�'r r � PAGE 4 11.01 - 11.09 Approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Holiday Companies, Generally Located at 250 - 57�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) .................................................... 12.01 - 12.14 ., , `� ' -� -'A / �, , . y� z";�.`_� � 2-'R��'� L 1 � l �� '• � /' �� - � ✓ Ci ! / , L Site Plan and Master Plan Approval Amendment, MPA #98-41, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., 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 Ten-Acre Site at the Western End of the Fridley Executive Center Property, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of I-694 and Highway 65 (1Na rd 1) .... ......................... ......... .......... 13.01 - 13.26 y��• .• •��• •�• �' �` �� . . -r. ./� .�rC�-- ��s�-l-�--� 1�,�-7^�'�r �-C''y._„� y � � . �� -� � C� ��2�t..: �-C . ��/��- z�._ �,�, ��; �.�� -�-�-�. z.��-�.-� � �-- ��,� ��.� � �� :_5 �-�,��-�' �- � ✓� , -�- ��--�-�-�� Y.�_ � 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Preliminary Piat Request, P.S. #98-02, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., to Create a Ten-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 at the Fridley Executive Center Property, Generally Located at � the Northwest Comer of I-694 and Highway65 (Ward 1) .......................................................................... 14.01 - 14.07 .�% � -� ,� `�f' ,�jj*--'^�"'`� � `' � � ; ��'"�, �� Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-02, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., �; .�.t� ��,�., to Permit Nine-Foot Wide Parking Spaces, � and Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-03, by MEPC American Properties, Inc., to Permit a Po�tion of the Drive Aisle of the Parking Area Within an R-1 Zoning District at the Fridley Executive Center Property, , �` Generally Located at the Northwest Corner �� .�ti�-�-- of l-694 and Highway 65 (Ward 1) .............. ..��.:..................................... 15.01 - 15.10 � L �� .. �� . l, i r /r ; -7`I�> � / -s � C �� `�-- / L/ //� � � i %v '-- _.. ._.._ .� / Informal Status Reports ......... 16.01 ....... ..j .... ...... ...... ......... ............... �L � �- � �� "��1�2 � �" � � �' C � z�-.-� � -� - � � . �- j _ r- �� -� �� ,. � � ^ �r�r_ : ��I�-,,-�� 2� � 1 � � �'n � y�� .�, , �. �, (�-� � `� �� ,,�,-- �//� ��-°�--�'�— .� � _t��. �= -�–� �,.�� .��/�,s.�",�_"z�� -, /��_ ADJOU�N ��`'-"`��--�-- �..�---�--�-� ,�-�--�-,,,-� ��,.,� .�- �,,�.�t�,,.z--� � ��,� �'�_ . �� // G'" �1% THE 1VIINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCII� MEETING OF FEBRUARY 231998 , THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL• MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider APPROVAL OF MZNUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1998: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 14-1998 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING AN AGREEMENT FOR POLICE OFFICERS OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR 1998: Mr. Burns, City Manaqer, stated that this agreement provides for a three percent cost of livinq adjustment for 1998. It also extends the City's practice of paying the cost of licensure for Police Officers at a cost of $840 per year for members of the bargaining unit. The contract provides for payment of Field Training Officers at the minimum rate of one hour of overtime per shift. This provision will cost about $1,400 per new Police Officer. Mr. Burns stated that the City has completed the Uniform Baseline and Settlement form required by Minnesota law. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 14-1998. 2. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 FOR I-694/TH 47 NE RAMP RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-3: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has added a minor work order to cover FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 2 3. 4. bituminous milling at the juncture of ramp pavement with existing pavement. The net cost of this change order is $193.40 and brings the revised contract for this project to $473,292.81. The actual cost for amounts covered by unit prices reduces the final payment to $455,984.99. AUTHORIZED CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 FOR I-694/TH 47 NE RAMP RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-3 WITH FOREST I,P.KE CONTRP.CTING, INC. IN THE �1MOUNT OF $193.40. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER REPAIR PROJECT NO. 314: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that bids for the 1998 sanitary and storm sewer repair project were opened February 19. The lowest bid received was from Insituform Central, Inc. in the amount of $198,865. This amount is well within the $225,000 budgeted for these projects. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the low bidder. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER REPAIR PROJECT NO. 314: Bidder Insituform Central, Inc. Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. Lametti & Sons, Inc. Municipal Pipe Tool, Inc. Total Bid $198,865.00 $201,624.50 $218, 830.00 $285,260.00 AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER REPAIR PROJECT NO. 314 TO THE LOW BIDDER, INSITUFORM CENTRAI�, INC. IN THE AMOLJNT OF $198,865.00. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWP.RD CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. 315: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the bids for this project were opened February 18. The low bid was submitted by Ron Kassa Construction in the amount of $52,825. This project is for remedial curb, gutter and sidewalk work due mainly to utility repairs or driveway entrance permits. Staff recommends the contract be awarded to the low bidder. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. 315: Bidder Ron Kassa Construction Landmark Concrete Gunderson Bros., Inc. Total Bid $52,825.00 $53,103.00 $57,877.50 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 3 Bidder Total Bid Scandy Concrete $58,050.00 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $63,280.00 Independent Curb $65,475.00 Curb Master, Inc. $69,125.00 Victor Carlson & Sons $69,950.00 AWI�RDED THE CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. 315 TO THE LOW BIDDER, RON KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,825.00. 5. CLAIMS: . AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLP.IMS NO. 79183 THROUGH 79389. 6. LICENSES: APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUSMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 7. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE ESTIMATES, AS FOLLOWS: Forest Lake contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 TH 47 and I-694 Ramp NE Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997-3 Estimate No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,218.15 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the consent aqenda items. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING• 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 407 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 407, ENTITLED "RIGAT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT," AND �,MENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITLED "GENERAI, PROVISIONS AND FEES." MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that in 1997, the Legislature established Chapter 123 dealing with the management of the public right-of-way. The statute enabled the cities to adopt an ordinance for the management of the public right-of-way for utilities placed within it effective March 1, 1998, with the assumption that rules from the Public Utilities Commission would be available at that time. Mr. Flora stated that the Public Utilities Commission is requesting an extension for establishing the right- of-way rules and, therefore, the rules will not be available until sometime in 1999. Mr. Flora stated to ensure that the City has some control of the right-of-way for the 1998 construction season, it is necessary to adopt a right-of-way ordinance. This ordinance establishes the City's right to manage the right-of-way and the utility companies that place their utilities in the rights-of-way. It covers permits and administration and imposes reasonable regulations on providers that use the public rights-of-way. This ordinance also provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-way. It requires reimbursement or return to the public for the use value of the public rights-of-way from those who obtain revenue or profits from such use in the form of a user fee. Mr. Flora stated that the ordinance outlines the required permits, the conditions for issuance of a permit, and the fee. It covers right-of-way patching and restoration, as well as joint and supplementary applications. The criteria for denial and revocation of a permit is outlined and provides for emergency work to be completed without a permit. The ordinance outlines the mapping information to be provided and location and relocation of facilities, as well as indemnification and liability. It also addresses abandoned and unusable facilities. Mr. Flora stated that the fees are based on staff's time to issue the permit. In addition to the fees outlined in the proposed ordinance a registration fee of $22.50 should be included. This proposed ordinance was sent to the companies that operate utilities FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 5 in the City. Letters were received from Paragon Cable and Minnegasco. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive the letters from Ms. Kim Roden of Paragon Cable dated February 23, 1998 and from Mr. Richard Pilon of Minneqasco dated February 23, 1998. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Roden, Paragon Cable, stated that she spoke with Mr. Flora last Friday and has submitted some of their comments in the letter received by the City Council. She suggested that language for those companies that already have franchises with the City be added to this ordinance indicating that the franchise is the prevailing document. She also requested that Paragon Cable be exempt from paying permit fees, as they are the only company in the right-of- way now that pays franchise fees to the City. Mr. John Theis, Community Service Manager for Northern States Power Company, submitted a letter regarding their comments on this ordinance. He felt this ordinance was much improved over past versions; however, Northern States Power still has many remaining concerns about the proposed language. These concerns include the requirement to register with the City annually, the requirement to post bonds, the inclusion of "user fees," the undergrounding provision, the indemnification language, and the potential requirements for arbitrary relocations and removal of abandoned equipment. Mr. Theis stated that Northern States Power is trying to work out a franchise now with the City. He hoped they could work with the City on this ordinance. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive the letter from Mr. Theis, Northern States Power Company, dated February 22, 1998. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Al Swintek, Local Government Relations with Minnegasco, stated that Minnegasco understands the City's right-of-way management concerns. He stated they are looking forward to working with the City to try to develop language that meets everyone's needs. As a franchise utility, Minnegasco has an existing franchise agreement with the City that addresses some of the concerns in this ordinance. He contacted Bill Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager. Mr. Hunt suggested that Minnegasco submit their comments in writing. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive a letter from A1 Swintek of Minnegasco dated February 23, 1998. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23 1998 PAGE 6 Mr. Swintek stated that Minnegasco's existing franchise agreement with the City specifies that location, construction, installation and maintenance of the gas utilities need to be done so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with traffic, travel and use of public ground; specifies the need to obtain a permit and Fridley's right to impose a reasonable fee; specifies that restoration will be done to as good a condition as formerly and that Minnegasco shall exercise reasonable care to maintain the repair for two years thereafter in good condition; specifies the need to promptly, permanently relocate its facilities or equipment whenever the City orders such relocation; specifies that Minnegasco may be required to install gas service connections prior to paving or resurfacing, whenever it is apparent that gas service will be required during the five years following the paving or resurfacing; and specifies that Minnegasco shall indemnify, keep and hold the City and its elected officials and employees harmless from any and all claims resulting from operation of Minnegasco's property located in, on over, under or across public ground of the City. Mr. Swintek stated that Minnegasco is requesting that Council encourage City staff to work with them and the other utility companies on the language differences that exist. He also wanted the City to qive serious consideration to adding language that would recognize an exception and/or exemption for utility companies that have franchise agreements in place. Mr. Pilon, Right-of-Way and Permit Engineer for Minnegasco, stated that he has addressed his concerns in the letter received by the City Council. One of his biggest concerns is the user fee for use of the public right-of-way. Minnegasco pays personal property taxes for those utilities including $22,000 in 1997. There is some concern with abandoned facilities and protection of utility facilities by City contractor crews. He supported a good management ordinance; however, issues not addressed must be discussed. He requested that there be further discussion on this ordinance before it is passed. Mayor Jorgenson thanked everyone for attending this meetinq. She stated the City has had very good working relationships with.all the companies and appreciated their service to the community. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed ordinance. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Councilman Billings stated that this ordinance originated from a Leagt�e of Minnesota Cities task force. He asked if any other cities have passed a similar ordinance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 7 Mr. Flora stated that the cities of Oakdale, Roseville and Coon Rapids have passed ordinances. He thought other cities were in the process of tryinq to get an ordinance passed in March. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked what would be the process after receiving all the comments. Mr. Flora stated that the task force has worked on this ordinance for a year. A number of changes were implemented and the comments can be reviewed. He believed there could be some changes. He hoped to present this ordinance for first reading at the first City Council meeting in March. If agreeable to the City Council he would like the ordinance adopted at the second City Council meeting in March. Mayor Jorgenson felt the City should take into consideration the franchise agreements the City already has with companies and address their concerns. Mr. Flora stated standards and a and mapping. addressed. that the last task force came up with engineering series of criteria for reconstructing the streets Some of the other issues have still not been Councilman Billings asked if the Public Utilities Commission's recommendations would replace this ordinance. Mr. Flora stated that they probably would not have a recommendation until July, 1999, but the City has the authority to adopt an ordinance now. At a later date the City may have to modify the ordinance to comply with rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission. Councilman Billings asked if it would be logical to have the streets, sewer, and water departments of the City covered under this ordinance. Mr. Flora stated that it was the intent not to charge the City departments because that would just be a paper transfer of dollars. It was intended that revenues from other permits would qo into the street utility fund for maintenance and operation of the system. Councilman Billings asked if the mapping also included the City departments as well. Mr. Flora answered in the affirmative. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:04 p.m. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 8 9. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: RECYCLING REPORT BY JULIE JONES, RECYCLING COORDINATOR: Ms. Jones, Recycling Coordinator, presented the 1997 year-end recycling report. The City achieved Anoka County's recycling goal by only one ton for a total tonnage of 2,469 or an increase of 150 tons from last year. There are three components to the recycling program: curbside, multi-unit buildings, and the recycling center. The curbside program had a definite impact on the tonnage collected, as there was an 11 percent increase, and the participation rate increased by 14 percent. The average pounds collected per household increased from 403 to 437 pounds. The citizen survey results show that residents approve of recycling plastic and the weekly recycling. � Ms. Jones stated that for the recycling in the multi-units buildings, 25 more tons was collected than in 1996. Apartment residents only recycle 132 pounds per household which is only 30 percent as much as the curbside program. She stated that not all the private haulers are reporting recycling numbers. Ms. Jones stated that the recycling center had a drop in tonnage in 1997 of 22 percent. Possible reasons for the decrease are the collection of more materials at curbside, improvements to recycling programs in other communities, and changes in packaging. She stated that $7,000 per year has been eliminated for the clean-up day, and $1,507 was generated in revenue in only three months by adding appliances, fluorescent lamps and scrap metal. The center suffered financially due to the drop in aluminum collected. The citizen survey showed residents like the changes at the recycling center, and 94 percent stated they received good or excellent service. There is no strong desire for change, and 53 percent felt the center should remain open, even if it is not self-supporting. Ms. Jones stated that the goals for 1999 are to boost curbside participation and multi-unit recycling weights, as well as increase aluminum receipts at the recycling center. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there are certain areas in the City that are not recycling. Ms. Jones stated that participation in some areas is better than others. Mayor Jorqenson asked if there are figures available on the amount of aluminum being recycled at curbside. - Ms. Jones stated that Super-Cycle categorized both steel and aluminum cans together. She said she would check on how it is now reported. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PAGE 9 Mayor Jorgenson stated she understands that box board is no longer accepted at the recycling center. Ms. Jones responded that this was an option with the recycling contract; however, there would be additional cost. Because box board is taken at curbside, this option was not exercised. Mayor Jorqenson suggested putting recycling containers in the parks to add to the tonnage. Ms. Jones stated that if plastic is brouqht to the recycling center it would cost the City. Ms. Jones stated that Anoka County is encouraging cities to change their licensing so that haulers who do not report recycling numbers will not receive a garage license. It is something the City may want to consider in the future if this continues to be a problem. Councilman Billings stated that a letter should be sent to all haulers regarding reporting and the possibility of a change in the license process if there is not compliance. Mayor Jorgenson stated that fees have to be in line with the cost for administration; however, if the City does not make their tonnage it would result in decreased revenue. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that other issues to be discussed informally were a request to serve wine, on a one-time basis, at Springbrook Nature Center; the potential for a 79th Avenue railroad crossing; and a letter from Tom Hovey of the Department of Natural Resources regarding the water level at Locke Lake. ADJOURNMENT : MOTION by Councilman Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of February 23, 1998 adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Nancy J. Jorgenson Secretary to the City Council Mayor Recreation and Natural Resource Department To: From: Date: Re: e O �� William W. Burns, City Manager�l Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources February 26,1998 Resolution To Sign Youth Initiative Grant Agreement �� Please find attached a Resolution authorizing you to sign the Youth Initiative Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota to complete the lower level of the Fridley Community Center project. I recommend that the City Council approve this Resolution at the March 2, 1998 City Council meeting. 1.01 RESOLUTION NO. -1998 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER, WILLIAM W. BURNS TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT END GRANT (`�THE GRANT CONTRACT") FOR THE YOUTH INITIATIVE GRANT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY WHEREAS, William W. Burns has been appointed by the City Council of the City of Fridley as its City Manager, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been awarded a Youth Initiative Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley City Council authorizes William W. Burns, City Manager to sign the Grant Agreement End Grant for the Youth Initiative Grant as the representative of the City of Fridley PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF ,1998. ATTEST: WII,LIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK 1.02 NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 . � �-� - Chairperson Savage called the February 18, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: 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. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 17 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION 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. �_;•� •► ' • ' • � i 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 be moving to the City of Fridley over the weekend. 2. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF FOUR REQUESTS BY DAVID JELLISON OF MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES� SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA #98 01 • PRELIMINARY PLAT P S#��3-02 SPECI�L_ USE PERMIT SP #98 02• AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP - 2.01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 2 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 properly. The remaining development can accommodate up to 250,000 square feet of multi-story o�ce buildings and approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial uses; 6. 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. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, 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. 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. 2.�2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 3 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 componerits 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 1-shaped building with loading docks in the rear. The rooftop has a metal screen which is proposed in Fndley. 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 theexteriors 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 northem 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 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 pfan was approved in 1997. Much time was also spent with the interse�tion 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 2.03 � � 1l � l l - i � ► : • • � • room on site for the Phase 11 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 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 1. 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 similarto 2.04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PAGE 5 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. 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 2.05 • • � � ' 1 • 1 ' • • � ' � � 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. 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 #o 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: 1. 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. 2.�6 ' ► ► ► � 11 11 � \ lL_ =i ' ► ; •• • - 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 tumover 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 tae City's detail on the striping. This complies with the intent of the code change. 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 2.07 . � � . � '� ''' 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 sta#ed the landscape plan indicates planting consistently around the site and 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 womed 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 2.08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PAGE 9 it. They design these projects to have 5 stalls per 1:000 square feet, which is basicaliy more 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 tot 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. IVIs. 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 concem 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'h 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 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 finro 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 2.09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PAGE 10 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 concemed 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 concemed 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 witl 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 tum 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 overalf 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 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. 2.10 ' • • �l • ll_ l = � ' � � � �' - 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 mtent 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 restnct 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 fumiture, 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 tumed 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 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 2.11 ' � 11 � , ' i "' • � 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 finro 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 concem 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. 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 2.12 ' ► ► ► � ll l � \ ll ► = i � � � � � ' � � - 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 concems because these are concems 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 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 concem 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, tuming movements from I-694, and the concems 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 westem 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. 2.13 P�L NNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PA E 14 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 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 IL 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 feeUperson. 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 2.14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PAGE 15 significant traffic studies done to ensure that traffic that enters or leaves the site can be accommodated by the adjacent streets. He had questions conceming 7th Street and the traffic studies done south of I-694. Staff had informed him that nothing has been done south of f-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 tra�c could �go on the frontage road to 57th Avenue. Some could go on 7th Street and tum left on 57 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 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 concem to the Commission that rezoning any property that is now residential for an impenrious 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. MOTION 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 concem 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. Perfiaps 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 concemed 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 2.15 PLANNING C�MMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 16 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 consistent with that, the City will either deny the request or call a public hearing. Mr. Kondrick referred to the area at the northem edge of the property between the drive and the homes. Will there be a berm there or just trees? ts 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 2.16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1998 PAGE 17 with MnDOT to see if they wili agree to complete that first phase at the same time as the building is being constructed. TI N by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of the Site Plan 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 westem 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: 1. 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 corporatelClass 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 pnor to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the extenor 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. f. 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 2.17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 18. 1998 PAGE 18 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 detai4ed 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: 1. The proposed colors of the exterior materials shall be approved by the Planning Commission, HRA and City Councif. 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. 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 2.18 - . �� . __ _ __•. 'll'l.l.\l�l�l�ll�l1'lli�rll:lis'u-ii�ii��z iG �� -� a and to dedicate public rights-of-way, with the following stipulations: 1. 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 b�ilding 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. P�JBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P S#98_01. BY HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES. 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 comer 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. 4. PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USF PFRIVIIT. #98-01. BY HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES. ll�: To allow a motor vehicle fuel "stationstore" and a motor vehicle wash establishment to be located in the northwest comer 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. MOTION 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 comer of the site for the Holiday Plus store. The site is zoned C-3, General Shopping District. The area to the north is 2.19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18,1998 PAGE 20 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 woufd 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 tk�e 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 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 befinreen 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: 1. Pending approval of Variance Requestr VAR #98-03, and approval of Special Use 2.2� ' • ► � �i�liuuirri��1��►��L-�-�■u��sz_l:tl��,�;.__ e� ' � 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 operatrons, the code is clear that, because of the traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor storage of inerchandise, indiscriminate advertising, and other charactenstics 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, seNice kits, outdoor display of merchandise; the property shall not be used for junk or inoperable or abandoned vehicles; and the buffermg 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: 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. 2.21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAG ?? 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 comer of the building is an overhead dock door. At the time of the approval, there was a stipulation that the petitioner 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 #he 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 � 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 2.22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 23 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 concem 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 befinreen the building and 57th. Mr. Hoeschen stated the second piece is that staff expressed concem 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. MOTION 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. 2.23 ' • � - • . 1�_ � =� �i . ..� Mr. Kondrick and Ms. Modig agreed. MOTION 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 comer 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 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 shalf 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 comer 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. 2.24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 25 7. The petitioner shall instali ali 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. 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. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY ��"�IMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18. 1997 MOTION 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. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1 1997 MOTION 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. 7. Q�r�IVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF _ DECEMBER 10. 1997 MOTION 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. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF DECEMBER 11. 1997 MOTION 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 2.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 18 1998 PAGE 26 THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & FNERC�Y COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 16 1997 MOTION 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. 10. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 5. 1997 MOTION 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. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF JANUARY 8 1998 MO ION 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. 12. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 14. 1998 MOTION 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. 13. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY E� ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 20 1998 M TI N 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. 14. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 28. 1998 2.26 �__s l �lL1L �\ ll_ _ l _=► ' � • ••• � � - � • MOTION 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 MOTtON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . ��isi � 15. 57TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Hickok reviewed the 57th Avenue improvement plan. 16. WALGREEN'S SITE 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. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjoum 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, .`� � � '�� !"L�vonn Cooper � �� Recording Secretary 2.27 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon H�kaas, Assistant Public Works Director DATE: March 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Hackmann Avenue Water Line Repair Project No. 317 Hackmann Street Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1998 - PW98-046 On Wednesday, February 25, 1998 at 10:00 am bids were opened for Project No. 317 and Project No. ST. 1998 - l. Plans and specifications were sent to 18 contractors and 10 bids were received. The low bid was submitted by Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. of Forest Lake, MN, in the amount of $382,705.00. Included in this project is the reconstruction of the roadway of Hackmann Avenue and Hackmann Circle. In addition, the watermain along Hackmann Avenue from Hathaway Lane to Tennison Drive will be replaced. This watermain has had approximately 28 breaks along its 1,775 foot length. The bid also included an option to install a sump pump drain line in the street. A meeting with the neighborhood is scheduled for March 4, 1998 to discuss individual participation in installing the sump pump drain line. The City is agreeable to contribute $475.00 per resident to connect to a buried pipe. Once the residents agree on the sump pump line, a change order to the project will be submitted for the system supported. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the contract for Project 317 and Project No. ST. 1998 - 1 to Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. for the base bid in the amount of $382,705.00 JH/JGF:cz Attachment 3.01 BID FOR PROPOSALS HACKA�IANN AVE WATER LINE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 317 HACKMANN CIItCLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST 1998 -1 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1998,10:00 A.M. ` < FLAI�HtJLLT)ER �� T " ! ; ; CQ ; NT� BIU �U1�I} �� ; ` Forest Lake Contracting Inc CNA Ins. $382,705.00 14777 Lake Dr Forest Lake MN 55025-9461 S R Weidema Inc American Inst. $404,042.39 17600 113th Ave N Architect Maple Grove MN 55369 Valley Paving Incv United Fire & $408,454.05 8800 13th Ave E Casualty Shakopee MN 55379 Thomas & Sons Inc United Fire & $412,733.00 13925 Northdale Blvd Casualty Rogers MN 55374-0303 Midwest Asphalt American Inst of $414,577.00 P O Box 5477 Architect Hopkins MN 55343 Northwest Asphalt Inc. Fidelity & Deposit $414,914.83 1451 Coun ty Road 18 Shakopee MN 55379 Hardrives Inc American Inst. $419,981.50 14475 Quiram Drive Architect Rogers MN 55374-9461 W. B. Miller Inc American Inst. $438,027.00 6701 Norris Lake Rd NW Architect Elk River MN 55330 Arnt Construcfion Co Inc US Fidelity $462,665.00 P O Box 224 Hugo MN 55038 C S McCrossan St Paul Co. $502,331.00 7865 Jefferson Hwy Maple Grove MN 55311-6240 Bonine Excavating NO BID 1269 Meadovwale Rd Elk River MN 55330 Central Landscaping Co NO BID 13655 Lake Dr Forest Lake MN 55025 ��Y� BID FOR PROPOSALS HACKMANN AVE WATER LINE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 317 HACKMANN CIRCLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION, PROJECT NO. ST 1998 -1 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25,1998,10:00 A.M. ; G4MME�T�`� <. P�r�r.��R so�� a Minnesota Pipe & Equipment NO BID 5145211thStW Farnungton NIN 55024 Northdale Construction NO BID 14450 Northdale Blvd Rogers MN 55374 Northern Water Works Supply No BID 4124 83rd Ave Brooklyn Pazk MN 55443 Penn Contracting Inc NO BID 13025 Central Ave NE Ste 200 Blaine MN 55434 Stepaniak Construcrion Co NO BID 2839 196th Ave NE East Bethel MN 55011 US Filter NO BID 15801 West 78th St en Pr ' 'e 44- 4 3.03 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager� �� PW98-045 FROM: 7ohn G. l�ra, Public Works Director DATE: March 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Well Repair Project No. 316 The 1998 Water Capital Improvement budget approved by the City Council identified $75,000 to repair Wells No. 2, 6 and 7. Wells No. 6 and 7 were awarded to Bergerson Caswell in January 1998 for a total bid of $32,325.00, leaving a balance of $42,675.00 for Well No. 2. The bids for Well No. 2 were rejected and re-advertized. New specifications were completed and sent out to four well contractors. Four bids were received and opened on Wednesday, February 25,1998, at 11:00. Keys Well Drilling was low bid for Well No. 2 at $32,181.00. Keys Well Drilling has received previous contracts with the City and has completed these contracts in a professional and timely manner. Recommend City Council receive the bids and award the contract to Keys Well Drilling in the amount of $32,181.00 for Well No. 2 Repair. BN/JGF:cz Attachments 4.01 BID FOR PROPOSALS REPAIR OF WELL NO. 2 PROJECT NO. 316 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25,1998,11:00 A.M. � : � $ ,, � � � � � � �,�� Keys Well Drilling Capital Imd. 5% $32,181.00 5 DAO 413 N Lexington Parkway St Paul MN 55104 Bergerson Caswell Well Company CNA 5% $35,544.00 March 2, 1998 5115 Industrial Maple Plain MN 55359 � Mark Traut Wells Old Republic 5% $43,622.50 Feb 20, 1998 141 S. 28th Ave Waite Park MN 56387 E. H. Renner & Sons Old Republic 5% $46,954.00 March 3, 1998 15688 Jarvis St. Elk River MN 55330 4.02 October 15, 1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA PROJECT AREA: WATER ��AR; 1997 REBUILD PUMP HOUSE NO. 1 AND WATER UTILITY WELL NO. 1 BOOSTER REPLACEMENT ELIMINATE DEAD END LINE AT ARTHUR TO WATER UTILITi� ANOKA ST WELL REPAIR- 10 ANO 13 WATER UTILITY REPLACE CHEMICAL ROOM EQUIPMENT AT WELL 13 WATER UTILITY 69TH 8� RICE CREEK BLVD WATERMAIN. WATER UTILITY REPLACEMENT (400 FT) INSPECT & REPAIR %2 AND 1'/: MG TOWERS WATER UTILITY YEAR: 1998 ELIMINATE DEAD END LINE AT HEATHER PL TO BEN MORE WELL REPAIR NO'S 2, 6& 7 HACKMAN AVE WATERMAIN REPLACE (CENTRAUTENNISON) INSPECT & REPAIR 1%: M STANDPIPE (53RD JOHNSON) REPAIR SHOP & STORAGE FACILITY YEAR: � 999 ELIMINATE DEAD END LINES HEATHER PL TO KERRY CR HICKORY DRIVE WATERMAIN REPLACE. 69TH WAY - 70TH CIR WELL REPAIR- 8 & 11 ' NEW PROJECTS "RELOCATED PROJECTS TOTAL WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY TOTAL WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY TOTAL 4.03' ESTIMATED 250,000.00 15,000.00 29,397.00 25,000.00 45,000.00 ,�0..000.00 S414.397.00 : �� 75,000.00 , 120,000.00 45,000.00 �� : �� 8,000.00 100,000.00 .i �� i� ., : �� QTY OF FRIDLEY CLAIMS MARCH 2, 1998 CLAIMS 79390 - 79525 5.01 � a CfTY OF FRIDLEY Tvpe of License PEDDLER/SOLICITOR FRIOLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 Statewide Tree and Landscape Route One Pierz, MN 56364 � Tim Hayes 6.01 Approved Bv Dave Sailman Public Safety Director Fees $60.00 � � CfTY OF FRIDIEY GAS SERVICES Alliant Heating 3650 Kennebec Dr #1 � Eagan MN 55122 GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL Blomquist Construction (201109561 39061 Mica Ave North Branch MN 55056 Home Pride Remodelers (20013090) 1408 Northland Dr #106 Mendota Heights MN 55120 HEATING Alliant Heating 3650 Kennebec Dr #1 Eagan MN 55122 MOVING Semple Building Movers 1045 Jessie St St Paul MN 55101 LICENSES Jeffrey Zimmerman Mark Blomquist Russell Rider Jeffrey Zimmerman Terry Semple 6.�2 RON JULKOWSKI Building Official STATE OF MINN Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official STATE OF MtNN � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY ESTI MATES MARCH 2,1998 Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 TH 47 and I-694 Ramp N.E. Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997 - 3 FINAL ESTIMATE ............................................................... $ 4,559.85 M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 19245 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Wellhouse No. 1 and Water Booster Station Project No. 298 Estimate No. 6 ........................................................................ $31,614.10 7.01 S T A T B O F M 2 N N S S O T A D E P A R T M 8 N T O F T R A N 3 P O R T A T I O N DR1►YC PZNAL VOIICSER VOIIC�R 6 8agiaeer : STSVB HORDOSICY Phoae :(612) 779-5048 FORBST LA&B CONTRACTZNG Tha Stata oi Minnwsota 14777 LARS DRIVS Dintrict 0 9 FORBST LARE D4i 55025 �� `j'�3 ti 7-R 2 '�- Date Approvad: O1S8P97 Amouat of Coatract: �"�� d_°.` ^ Class of Work : GRADB, STORM SBWER, CONCA8T8 PAVEt�I'P, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND TQRP ESTASLISffitENT Locatad Ia : Rll�, WB I-694 TO NB TB 47 Coatract No. Z99999 Veador No. 090287001 For Period Hadiag 25FS898 Last Partial Sstimata: 18FE898 - - - - - - - - - ' ' - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - ' - - - - - ' - - � ' - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - State Truak Fad�ral l+uads Valu� of Work L�sa Pravious Value of Work Fsdaral Project 8ighway Projact �eumbsred Cartifiad Work Certifiad Noa Number Number Numbaz To Data To Dat• Cartifiad This Vouchar 2art - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'rH 47 5455,984.89 $455,984.89 $0.00 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - TOTALS: $500,000.00 S455,984.89 $455,984.89 $0.00 $0.00 - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - ' - • ' ' ' - ' ' - - ' - - - ' ' - ' ' - ' ' - - - - - - ' ' ' , ' - - - - - - ' - ' - - - ' - � - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - -�- - ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - ��.�,� �' .-- Previous Retainaga 50.00 Ratainago Ralaased This Vouch�r j4-3t� Rataiaaga Thi9 Vouchar S0.00 Relaaaa Thia Vouch�z S0.00 La�s R�taiaage This Vouchar $0.00 ----------------------------------------------- � y-�'S--gs------- Ratainase to Dat• S0.00 N�t Amouat Du� This Vouchar � Relaased to Dat• 50.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' • - - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - ' - - - - _ . _ . - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - • - - - Thia Proj�ct is 91.19� compl�ta. ° _ ' �"_�- ��5 /� Cvn� �,rS Siy+t�.,�� '( _._.� _ _ ; ��q � �G�n� L�tZ�'s s�9� p a� 7.02 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TR.ANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T 2 F I E D ,,ial Voueher Poz Work P�r£orm�d up to F�bruary 25, 1998 oa Coatract Z99999 Sh��t No 2 Quaatitioa for 3.P. No. Group No. 1 GRADS, STORM S8Wffit, CONCR8T8 PAV�ffiiT, TRAlFZC SIGN7IL AND TQRB SSTABLZS�ffi�1'P RA1�, WS I-69f TO NS TS 47 FOR MIbIliBSOTA F�ffitAL AZD PROJSCT . - ' ' - ' ' ' - - - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' - ' ' ' ' - - - - ' - ' ' ' - - - - - ' ' ' - ' ' - ' ' ' Tt�m Coatract Vait IIait Coatract Coatract liaal Binal Grp Lin� ;�mb�r Itam Pric� 4uaatity Amouat Quaatity Amouat No. No. - - - - ' ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - . . . - - . - ' ' - - - _ _ _ - . - - _ 921.501 MOBILIZATZON LUMP SL]M 22000.00 1.00 22,000.00 1.00 22,000.00 001 001 Totals foz Proposal Lia� Number 001 1.00 $22,000.00 1.00 5�2.000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE DX EACH 5000.00 1.00 5,000.00 1.00 5,000.00 001 002 Totala for Proposal Lias Numbor 002 1.00 S5,000.00 1.00 55,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) M 20.00 60.00 1,200.00 56.00 1.120.00 001 003 Totals for Yzoposal Lina Numbaz 003 60.00 51,200.00 56.00 S1,120.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GL"PTER N 6.50 55.00 357.50 68.00 442.00 001 004 Totala for Propoaal Lina Numbar 004 55.00 5357.50 68.00 5442.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104.503 RcMOVE CONCRETE ?AVF.'ME.1T :N2 7.00 550.00 3,850.00 626.73 4,387.1i 001 005 Totala for Proposal Lin� Numbaz 005 550.00 $3,850.00 626.73 $4,387.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :04.503 R°MOVE BITUMZNOUS PAVEMENT P12 4.75 102.00 484.50 149.00 707.75 001 006 Totals for Proponal Lia� NumUar 006 102.00 $489.50 149.00 $707.75 - - - - - ` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '.04.509 REMOVE CONCRETE APRON EACH 175.00 12.00 2,100.00 12.00 2,100.0a 001 00� Totals for Pzoposal Lin� Ntimbar 007 12.00 $2,100.00 12.00 S�.100.00 :04.509 RzMOVE CATCH HASIN e�e�.CH 2O0.00 5.00 1,000.00 5.00 1,000.00 001 008 Totals for Proposal Line Numbar 008 5.00 S1,000.00 5.00 51,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _)i.509 RBF(OVE LIGHT STANDARD BASE EACH 2O0.00 4.00 800.00 4.00 8�0.00 001 009 Totala for Proposal Lina NUmbor 009 4.00 $800.40 - 4.00 $800.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMEN'P (FULL DEPTH) M 10.00 285.00 2,850.00 281.00 2,810.00 001 O10 Tota19 for Proposal Line Nt�mbar O10 285.00 S2.850.00 181.00 52.810.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _C4.513 SAWING HIT PAVfi'ME:I'P (FULL DEPTH) M 10.00 28.00 280.00 115.34 1.153.40 001 O11 Totals for Yroponal Lia� Numbaz 011 28.00 5280.00 115.34 $1,153.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74.523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 2O.00 6.00 120.00 6.00 120.00 001 012 Totals for Proposal Liaa Numbar 012 6.00 $120.00 6.00 $120.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04.607 HAUL SALVAGED MATERIAL LUMP SUM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 001 013 Totala for Proposal Lin� Numbar 013 1.00 $1.00 1.00 51.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - _05.501 COhN10N EXCAVATION M3. 5.00 1,046.00 5,230.00 1,052.30 5,261.50 001 014 Tota19 for Propoaal Line Numbar O1� 1,046.00 $5,230.00 1,052.30 55,261.50 � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.03 S Q STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TR�NSP4RTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R IC C E R T I F I E D .aal Vouchar Foz Wozk Performad up to Pebruary 25, 1998 oa Coatract Z99999 Sheat :to 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ' - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - ' - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - ' ' - - ' • - Item Coatract IIait IIait Coatract ContracG Fiaal Fiaal Grp Lin� tumbar Itam Pric• Quaatity Amouat Quaatity Amouat No. No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05.507 SUBGRaDE EXCAVATION M3 4.00 1,928.00 7,722.00 1,928.00 7,712.00 001 O15 Totala for Proposal Line Numbez O15 1,928.00 $7,712.00 1,928.00 $7,712.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05.521 GRANULAR BORROW (CV) M3 12.00 2,315.00 2'7,780.00 2,315.00 27,780.00 001 OI5 Totala for Propoaal Lina Numbar 016 2,315.00 527.780.00 2,315.00 $27,780.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _05.522 SELECT GRAN[TI.P�R BORROW (CV) M3 12.00 1,123.00 13,4�6.00 I,123.C� 13,470.00 001 ^uI7 Totala for Pzopoeal Lina Numbor 017 1,123.00 SI3,476.00 1,123.00 $13,476.00 - - - ' - - - � - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05.523 COhIlNON BORROW (CV) M3 10.25 1,817.00 18,624.25 1,817.00 18,624.25 001 012 Totals ior Proposal Lina Numbar 018 1,817.00� $18,624.25 1,81�.00 $18,624.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05.543 STABILI2ING AGGRe.GATE T .O1 201.00 2.OI 0.00 0.00 001 019 Total� for Proposal Line Numbar 019 201.00 $2.01 0.00 50.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.503 AGGRHGATE HASE (CV) CLASS S M3 20.00 217.00 4,340.00 213:^u0 4,260.00 001 020 Totala for Propoaal Lin� NY�mber 020 217.00 S4,340.00 113.00 $4,260.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.604 AGCREGATE SHOtTLDERiNG CLASS 5 M2 33.00 12.00 396.00 0.00 0.00 001 021 Totals for Pzopo9al Liae Number 021 12.00 S396.00 0.00 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01.503 CONCRETE PAVEMEIN': IRREGULAR WIDTH 230 M2 41.00 2,227.00 91,307.00 2,3I9.82 95,112.62 001 022 Totals for Propoaal Liaa Number 022 2,227.00 $92,307.00 2,319.82 $95,112.62 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - 01.529 REINFORCEMENT HARS (2PDXY COATED) KG 3.50 518.00 1,813.00 65Y.49 2,280.21 001 023 Totals for Proposal Liae Numbar 023 518.00 $1,813.00 651.49 $2,280,Z1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71.538 DOWEL BAR c^,P.CH 4.25 1,620.00 5,885.00 1,638.00 6,961.50 001 024 Totals for Proposal Lia� Ph�mb�r 024 1,620.00 56,885.00 1,638.00 $6,961.50 �71.602 DRILL & GROUT REINF BARS (EPDXY COATED KG 5.00 666.00 3,330.00 331.67 1,658.35 001 025 Totala for Proposal Lia� Numbsr 025 666.00 $3,330.00 331.67 $1,658.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �1.604 CONCRaTE PAVEMENT LUGS M 70.00 90.00 6,300.00 39.90 2,�86.00 001 026 Totale for Propoaal Lin� Numbar 026 90.00 $6,300.00 39.80 $2,786.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - �1.604 P°RMANENT TERMIDIA:. HEADERS M 140.00 17.00 2,330.00 12.4J 1,736.00' 001 027 Totals for Proponal Lina Number 027 17.00 52.380.00 12.40 $1,736.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.508 TYPE 61 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE T 175.00 11.90 2,082.50 0.00 0.00 001 028 Totaln for Propoaal Liaa Numbar 028 31.90 $2,082.50 0.00 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.520 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE T 100.00 17.40 1,740.00 21.75 2.175.00 001 024 Totala for Proposal Lina Phimbar 029 17.40 $1,740.00 21.75 $2,175.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.514 TYPE 31 BASE CO(7RSE MIXT[JRE T 100.00 21.80 2,180.00 27.25 2,725.00 001 a30 ToGale for Proposal Liae lRimbar 030 21.80 $2,180.00 27.25 $2,7Z5.00 7.04 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D aal Vouch�r For Work P�rEorm�d up to B�bruary 25, 1998 on Contract 299999 Sh�at No 4 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - ' - ' - - ' - ' - - - - - ' - ' - - - ' - ' - - - - :t� Coatract IInit Dhit Coatract Coatract 8ina1 Bfnal Grp Lia� sbar It�m Pric• Quaatity Amouat Quaatity Amouat No. No. - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - ' ' - - - ' - ' ' ' - - - ' - - - ' - ' - - ' - - ' 57.502 HITUMINOUS MATER:e'�L FOR TACIC COAT L 5.00 59.00 295.00 94.64 473.20 001 031 Totala for Proposal Line Nl�mb�r 031 59.00 5295.00 94.64 5473.]0 • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i.515 900 hIlN RC PIPE AFRON EACH 900.00 1.00 900.00 1.00 900.00 001 032 Totals for Proposal Liaa Numb�r 032 1.00 5900.00 1.00 $900.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -J3.511 300 (�7 CS PIPE Se^.dER M 52.00 55.00 2,860.00 59.83 3,1I1.16 001 033 Total� for Propasal Lia� Numbar 033 55.00 52.860.00 59.83 53,111.16 - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - »3.541 300 �+R�t RC PZPE 52WER DESIGN 3006 M 55.00 68.00 3,740.00 67.70 3,723.50 001 034 Totals for Proposal Lina Numb�r 034 68.00 $3,7l0.00 67.70 $3,723.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �)3.541 450 DM�t RC PIPE SzdER DESIGN 3006 M 68.00 3.00 204.00 3.00 204.00 00: 035 Totale for Proposal Line Numbez 035 3.00 5204.00 3.00 S204.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i:3.54: 600 hIIN RC PIPE S2i1°_R DESIGN 3006 M 80.00 60'.00 5,280.00 66.00 5,29..00 001 0�6 Totals for Proposal Liaa Numb�r 036 66.00 55,380.00 66.00 55,280.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i0?.541 900 hIlYl RC PIPE SB+TER DESIGN 3006 M 150.00 94.00 14,100.00 93.00 13,950.00 001 037 Totals for Pzoposal Liae Numbar 037 99.00 S14,100.00 93.00 513,950.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;03.54: 900 t�t RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL II M 160.�0 23.00 3,680.00 23.50 3,775.00 001 032 Tota19 for Proposal Liae Numb�r 038 33.00 53,680.00 23.60 S3,776.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0'0.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN A OR e M 700.00 7.00 4,900.00 6.84 4,788.00 001 039 Totala ior Propoaal Liae Numb�r 039 7.00 $4,900.00 6.84 54,788.00 i0o 501 CONST DRAINAGE STRG'CTURE DES C G OR H M 550 00 6.50 3,575.00 6.8'0 3,773.00 001 040 Totals foz Proposal Lin� Ihimbar 040 6.50 S3,575.00 6.86 S3,T73.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i06.501 CONST DRAIN STRUCTUR� DES 1500 hQ1 4020 M 800.00 18.30 14,640.00 1�.52 14,81�.00 001 04= Totala for Proposal Liaa Numb�r 041 18.30 $14,640.00 18.52 $14,816.00 �06 516 CASTING ASSEP�LY EACH 300.00 19.00 5,700.00 19.00 5,700.00 OOI 042 Totala foz Propoeal Line Numbar 042 19.00 55,700.00 19.00 $5,700.00 i06 002 CONNECT I:ITO EX:STING DRAINAGE STRUCfq EACH 325 00 1.00 325.00 1.00 325.00 001 043 Totals for Propoeal Line Numb�r 043 1.00 $325.00 1.00 $325.00 ill S�1 RANDOM RIPRAP CLe1.S5 IZ M3 110.00 7.00 770.00 7.00 7�0.00 001 044 Totals for Proposal Lina Numb�r 044 7.00 $770.00 7.00 $770.04 31 501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN D424 M 45.00 58 00 2,610.00 65.00 2,925.00 001 045 Totals for Proposal Liao Numbar 045 _ 58�00 - _$2.610.00_ - _ -65.00_ - $2.925.00 _ _ - _ _ _ 31 501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN D424 (MO M 45 00 2�4.00 12,330.00 2�4.30 12.343.50 001 046 _ _ _ _TOtals for Proposal_Line Numbar_046- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -��4.00 _ 512.33a•00- _ _ 274.30- -S12�343.50 - _ - _ _ _ 7■�5 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D 'iaal Vouchar For Work Parformad up to Fabzuary 25, 1998 on Contract 299999 Sheat No 5 ' - - - - - � - - � - - � - - � - - � - - - - - � - - � - - � - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Itam Coatract IIait IInit Contract Coatract Final Binal Gxp Liae Numb�r It�m Prica Quantity Amouat Quaatity Amouae No. No. ' ' - - ' - - - - - - - - ' - . ' - ' - ' ' - - - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - -545.515 LZGHT HASE DESIGN E e^.A,G�t 535.00 4.00 2,140.00 4.00 2,140.00 001 047 Totais Eor Propoaal Lina Number 047 4.00 $2,140.00 4.00 SZ.140.00 545.�2i 78 i'�4N RIGID STBEL CONDUIT M 48.00 10.00 480.00 13.00 624 00 '001 048 Toea19 For Propoaal Liaa Numbar 048 10.00 $480.00 13.00 $624.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?545.533 ARMORED CABLE 3 COND NO 4 M 16.00 370.00 5,920.00 239.00 �3,824.00 001 049 Totals £or Propoaal Liae Numbar 049 370.00 $5,920.00 239.00 S3,824.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :545.502 RELOCATE LIGFiTING UNIT �Cf•I 300.00 4.00 1,200.00 4.00 1,200.00 001 O50 Totala for Proposal Lina Numbar O50 4.00 $1,200.00 4.00 $1,200.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '.550.54= 1.7 M X 1.7 M NMC LOOP DETECTOR E?.CH 1100.00 1.00 1,100.00 1.00 " 1,100.00 001 OSI Totals for Proposal Lina Numbor O51 1.00 $1,100.00 1.00 $1,100.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 550.532 LOOP DETrCTGR SPLICE �AC:i 365.00 1.00 305.00 1.00 365.00 001 052 Totals £or Propoaal Liae Number OSZ 1.00 $365.00 1.00 5365.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'S54.o'd3 REAi,IGN STR(JCTURAL PLATE GliARDRAIL M 30.00 15.00 450.00 19.00 570.00 001 053 Totals for Proposal Lina Number 053 15.00 $450.00 19.�0 $570.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :Se3.o01 :RA:FIC CONTROL LI,'M? SL7M 15000.00 1.00 15,000.00 1.00 15,000.00 001 054 Totaln for Proposal Liae Number 054 1.00 S15,040.00 1.00 $15,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C M2 250.00 7.20 1,800.00 7.20 1,800.00 001 O55 Totals for Proposal Lin� Numbar O55 7•20 S1,800.00 7.20 $1,800.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :5'04.602 :NSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 50.0� 11.00 550.00 11.00 550.00 001 OSo Totals for Proposal Lia� Numbar Q56 11.00 $550.00 11.00 $550.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW) PAINT EACFI 45.00 2.00 90.00 2.00 90.00 001 057 Totals £or Proposal Lin� Ntrmbor 057 2.00 $90.00 2.00 $90.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) PAZNT EACH 45.00 4.00 180.00 4.00 180.00 001 OSd Totals for Pzopo9al Lina Numbar 058 4.00 $180.00 4.00 $180.00 � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - 150'4.0`02 PAVEME:IT MESSAGE (ON:,Y) PAINT EACH 65.00 4.00 260.00 0.00 0.06 001 059 Totals for Propoaal Line Number 059 4.00 $260.00 0.00 $0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )564.602 PAVT MESSAGE (LEFT-THRU ARROW) PAINT EACFI 60.00 2.00 120.00 2.00 120.00 OOI 060 Tota19 for Proposal Lina N�mber 060 2.00 5120.00 2.00 $120.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )564.603 100 MM SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT M 1.35 765.00 1,032.75 1,159.00 1.564.65 001 061 Totals for Proposal Liaa Numbar 061 765.00 $1,032.75 1,159.00 $1,564.65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )564.604 ZEHRA CROSSWALK-WHITE POLY PREFORMED M2 136.00 22.00 2,992.00 20.32 2,763.52 001 062 Totals for Proponal Liaa Numbar 062 22.00 $2,992.00 20.32 $2,763.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.os STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TR.ANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D ;al Vouchez For Work P�rformed up to Pabruary 25, 1998 oa Contraet Z99999 SheaC No 6 . - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - ' - - ' - ' - - ' - - - - - °:� Contract IIait IIait Coatzact Contract Final Fiaal Grp Lia� ��r =t� Pric• Quaatity Amouat Quaatity Amount No. No. - - - - - - - ' - ' - - ' - - - - ' - ' - - � . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' - - - ' - ' - ' :�.511 FUL:, T ACT T CONTTtOL SIGNAL SYSTEM SIG SYS 92000.00 1.00 92,000.00 1.00 92,000.00 002 063 Totals £or Proposal Lin� NUmb�r 063 1.00 $92,000.00 1.00 S9�.000.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '2.501 TEMPCRARY FENCE M 4.50 2�5.0� 1,237.50 O.00 0.00 001 064 Totala foz Proposal Lia� Numb�r 064 275.00 $1,337.50 0.00 S0.00 � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; ;73.501 BALE CHECK e.ACH 5.00 10.00 50.00 19.00 95.00 001 055 Totala for Proposal Liao 2himb�r 065 10.00 550.00 19.00 595.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ''3.510 RZSER STANDPIPS EACH 500.00 5.00 2,500.00 0.40 0:00 001 066 Totala for Proposal Lin� Numbar 066 5.00 - S2.500.00 0.00 50.00 • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?9.�01 SEEDING •HA 2500.00 2.00 5,000.00 .03 1,575.00 001 �67 Totals for Proposal Lia� Numbaz 067 2.00 S5,000.00. .63 $1,575.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?S.SC2 SEED MIXTURE 3CA KG 25.00 150.00 3,750.00 52.�� 1,304.00 402 Oo3 Totala for Pzopo9al Line Numb�r 068 150.00 S3,750.00 52.16 51,304.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;75.505 SvDDING TYPE E�20SiCN M2 2.25 664.00 1,494.00 0.00 0.00 001 069 Totals for Propoaal Liae Numbor 069 664.00 $1,494.00 0.00 50.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 5.511 :^.LTLCH MATERIAL TYPE I T 125.00 9.00 1,125.00 1.85 231.25 001 Q70 Totals for Propoaal Liaa Numb�r 070 9.00 51,135.00 1.85 $231.25 - ^. �i9 DISK ANCHORING fiA 165.00 2.00 330.00 .�J 92.50 001 071 Totals for Propoaal Line Numbor 071 2.00 $330.00 .50 S82.50 75 521 POLYPROPYLENE ?I.?,BTIC :tETTING M2 40 500.00 200.00 496.29 198.51 001 072 Totala for Proposal Lin� Numbar 072 500.00 SZ00.00 496.28 5198.51 ;7i 531 COhIlNERCIAL FERiILI2ER ANALYSIS 10-20-2 T 600.00 1.00 600.00 .30 180.00 001 073 Totaln for Propooal Liae Number 073 1.00 $600.00 .30 5180.00 Total� for All Hody Itama 5438,605.48 7•�7 i STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D B A C R S H E E T A D J U S T M E N T S 'ouchar No. 6 For �ork P�rgorm�d up to Fobzvary 25, i998 oa Coatract 299999 --------------�--------�-�-�-�---�-------------�-�--- ShaotNo7 Itam Number D�scriptioa IInit IIait philt To Data To Data Fad ._____________________________________________Pzica___Factor QuaatitY Amouat PAR/NON roup Numbor 001 ---------'-----'--'-----'--"--'---'--"-'--'-----"--'--'--'-'----"-. ' —_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ -'- ^--�------�--�--�------------------ iae�llaaaoua .::....�"-"-"--""-""""""'-"-"'-"""--"-'---'-"""" ---'-'--'--'-------'--------------'---' --------- 2331.514-00000 32 BASE COURSE MI%TURE OVER 125t......, t 66.00 1.0000 2.76 182.16 233:.510-00000 41 9INDER COURSE MZXTURE 0�lER 125�..... t 66.00 I.0000 5.35 353.10 2331.508-00000 41 WERRZNG COURSE MIXTURE UP TO 15 ton t 165.00 1.0000 I5.00 2,475.00 233I.508-00000 41 WEAR COURSE MIXTURE OVER 15ton...... t 66.00 1.0000 8.33 549.78 Subtotal for Miscellaa�ous .....�.> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -53.560.04- - - - - Subtotal for Group 1 is $3,560.04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7�0\/ 5 : � ; STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D W O R K O R D E R S F O R M I N O R E X T R A W O R R �.char No. 6 For Work Bariozmed up to 8�bruary 25, 1998 oa Coatract Z99999 Sheat No 8 � - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - - ' - - - ' - ' - - - ' ' - - - ' - _ - . . - - - - - - - ' - - ' - - ' - - - - - �t� Contraet IIait IIait Mult To DaC� To Dat� Gzp Fad. :mber Itam Pric� Factor Quaatity Amouat No. PAR/NON - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ' ' - . - _ . srk Order Number 001 ---------------------------------------------------------- CONSTRUCTION SIGN SPECIAL ;.000 Work Order # 001 NEG.CONST.SZGN SPECI M2 199.10 1.0000 1.67 332.49 001 NEGOTIaTED Total for Piork Ord�r 001 $332.49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - rk Order Number 002 ---------------------------------------------------------- RE-HAB 36' (900mm) RCP...JOINT REPAIR... J.,00 Work Or3er # 002 eORCE ACCOUNT (36 RC LS/S 1.00 1.0000 1,362.84 1,862.4= 001 Total £or Work Order 002 $1,862.84 - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �rk Order Number 003 ---------------------------------------------------------- CLEAR AND GRUB SMALL BRUSFi AND TREES .0.000 Work Order # 003 FORCE ACC. CLEAR & G LS/$ 2.00 1.0000 105.03 lO5.C3 001 Total for Work Ord�r 003 ;105.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �rk Order Number 004 ------------------------------------------------.---------- ADDITIONAL HANDHOLE & 75 mm R.S.C. PUSH 00.000 Work Order � 004 NEG. HH & 75mm RSC P LUMP SUM 5 863.47 1.0000 1.00 863.47 001 NEGOTIATBD Total for Work Ordar 004 $863.47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >rk Order Number 005 ---------------------------------------------------------- DAILY RAMP CLOSURE .00a Work Order # 005 NEG. DAILY RAMP CLOS LUMP SUM 605.00 1.0000 2.00 1,210.00 001 NEGOTIATED Total for Work Ordar 005 $1,210.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - rk Order Number 006 ---------------------------------------------------------- EXTRA LIGHTING HANDHOLE 7.09 0000.000 work Order q 006 NEG. LIGHTING HANDHO LUMP SUM S 632.50 1.0000 1.00 632.50 001 NEGOTIATED Total for iPOrk Ordar 006 $632.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Work Order Number 007 ---------------------------------------------------------- REHAB SIGNAL BASE ]000.000 Work Order # 007 REHAB SIGNAL BASE LS/$ 1.00 1.0000 4,524.37 4,524.37 041 Total for Work Ordar 007 $4,524.37 � 7.10' ' ; # � STATE OF MINNESOTA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S T A T E M E N T OF W O R R C E R T I F I E D W O R K O R D E R S F O R M I N O R E X T R A W O R K loucher No. 6 For Work Parformad up to Fabruary 25, 1998 oa Contract Z99999 SheeC No 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ' ' - - ' ' - ' - - ' - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - ' - ' - ' ' ' - - ' - - Zp� Coatzact IInit IIait Mult To Data To Data Grp F�d. Nymber =tam Pzic• Factor Quaatity Amouat No. PAR/NON �Vork Order Number 008 ---------------------------------------------------------- INTERCONNECT CONDUIT & HANDHOLES i000.040 Work Order # 008 ABP HA1vDHOLES EACH 632.50 1.0000 2.00 1,265.00 001 AVERAGE BID :000.000 Work Order # 008 ABP 2'PVC M 18.04 1.0000 80.00 1,443.20 001 AVERAGE BZD )000.000 Work Order # 008 ABP 2'RSC M 31.1'/ 1.0000 44.50 1,387.06 001 AVERAGE BID Total Eor Work Order 008 54,095.26 �ork Order Number 009 ---------------------------------------------------------- MILL BITUMINOUS SHOULDER (H & M ASPHALT) ';000.000 work Order # 009 MZLL SHLD. H&M ASPHA LS/5 193.40 '.0000 1.00 193.44 0a1 � Total Eor Work Ordar 009 5193.40 - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.11 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manage��- PW98-047 FROM: John G. Flo. r�,_Public Works Director 3� DATE: March 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Ordinance Chapter 407 As a result of the public hearing on the right-of-way ordinance Chapter 407 of the City Code conducted on Monday, February 23, 1998, we received comments from NSP, Minnegasco and Paragon Cable. I have reviewed those letters and identified certain changes and additions to the ordinance to incorporate the concerns of our utilities. The attached ordinance strikes out the deleted comments and underlines the new items. The specific changes made were: • The definition of pavement • Franchise supremacy to Section 407.03 • Caveat of delayed penalty Section 407.07 • T'he requirement for permits regardless of what agency the right-of-way exists Section 407.10 • Establishment of a 2-year guarantee period consistent with our existing franchises Section 407.11 • Relocation of the obligation requirement to Section 407.11 • Deletion of two denial items because they already were incorporated into another section and our reconstruction restoration templates Section 407.15 • A clarification of underground facilities in Section 407.22 • Deletion of the nuisance aspect identified in Section 407.22 • Expansion of the nuisance item for abandoned facilities in Section 407.28 • Plus I added the fee for the registration fee in Chapter 11. I discussed these changes with representatives from the three utilities at a meeting on Wednesday, February. 25, 1998. I believe that their major concerns have been explained or defined and do not feel there is any major discontent with the document as currently written. Recommend the City Council have their first reading of the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance Chapter 407. JGF:cz Attachment 8.�1 ORDINANC$ NO. . AN ORDINANC$ REPFALING CHAPTLR 407 OF THE FRIDL$Y CITY CODE IN ITS �NTIR�TY, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPT$R 407, $NTITL$D "RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEM$NT" AND A1�NDING CHAPTLR 11 OF Tiffi FRIDLEY CITY CODE� FNTITLED "GENBRAL PROVISIONS AND FEgSn THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 407.01. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 1. To provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the rights-of-way, a primary cause for the early and excessive deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation. Right-of-way obstruction is a source of frustration for merchants, business owners and the general population which must avoid these obstructions or change travel or shopping plans because of them and has a detrimental effect on commerce. Persons whose equipment is within the right-of-way are the primary cause of these frequent obstructions. The City holds the rights-of-way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust for its citizens. The City and other public entities have invested millions of dollars in public funds to build and maintain the rights-of-way. It also recognizes that some persons, by placing their equipment in the right-of-way and charging the citizens of the City for goods and services delivered thereby, are using this property held for the public good. Although such services are often necessary or convenient for the citizens, such persons receive revenue and/or profit through their use of public property. 2. In response to the foregoing facts, the City hereby enacts this new Chapter of the City Code relating to right-of-way'permits and administration, together with an ordinance mak'ing necessary revisions to other Code provisions. This Chapter imposes reasonable regulations on providers of electricity, light, heat. cooling energy, liquid and gaseous fuels, information and communication service to the public that place and maintain facilities or equipment currently within its rights-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this Chapter, persons disturbing and obstructing the 8.�2 rights-of-way will bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for their integrity. Finally, this Chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-way. 3. In addition to the foregoing recovery of costs and regulation of use, the City Council determines that there is an existing and legitimate state and local public policy, which authorizes the City to require payments as reimbursement or return to the public for the use value of the public rights-of-way from those who obtain revenue or profits from such use. This reimbursement is provided for and defined in this ordinance as the "user fee." Telecommunication facilities are exempt from a user fee �2y state statute. a. Public Interest and Welfare. The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to provide for the payment of a user fee by all persons who use and occupy the right-of-way for operating their businesses. This provides equity by requiring all users of the right-of-way to pay compensation apportioned equally among them all for the value and benefit of using such right-of-way. To ensure such fair treatment, this Chapter exempts franchise holders which pay franchise fees to the City on the date of adoption of this Chapter from the payment o€ a user fee. b. Legislative Power. In these situations, the City Council desires to exercise its lawful police power and common law authority, and all statutory authority which is available to it, including but not limited to, the powers conferred on it under Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.36, 222.37, 237.16 and 300.03, (410.0�) and 412.211, subdivisions 6, 23 and 32. The Council finds and determines that the public interest will be best protected by adopting this Chapter conferring the right to occupy the right-of-way in return for payment as authorized by law. c. Not a Rate. The City Council finds and determines that the user fee authorized by this Chapter is not and is not intended to be a rate as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, Subd. 5. Such user fee is not a fee for a service that is provided to the customer of a person using the right-of-way, but is rather a fee paid for the right of that person to operate in the public right- of-way, and to maintain the equipment of a utility in the right- of-way in the City of Fridley. 8.03 407.02. DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. Reference hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified references to sections in this Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. a. "Applicant" means any Person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. b. "City" means the City of Fridley, Minnesota. For purposes of section 407.27, City means its elected off'icials, officers, employees and agents. c. "Construction Performance Bond" means a performance bond, or other form of security posted to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to assure that Right-of-Way Excavation and Obstruction work is completed in accordance with the terms of the Right-of-Way Permit, or other applicable State law or local regulation. d. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the Right-of-Way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such Right-of-Way earlier than would be required if the excavation did not occur. e. "Degradation Cost" means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in proposed PUC rules parts 7819.9900 t0 7819.9950. ;"^^°^a;-' ° ��-r^, � •� rr f. ��Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the City to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by the excavation, and which equals the Degradation Costs. g. "Department" means the Department of Public Works of the City. h. "Department inspector" means any Person authorized by the Director to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this Chapter. i. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Public works of the City, or her or his designee. E�� j. ��Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in Right-of-Way construction. k. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of Facilities in order to restore service to a customer. 1. m. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain Facilities in any Right-of-Way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a Right-of-Way. n. "Excavation Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained before a Person may excavate in a Right-of-Way. An Excavation Permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit. � o. "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an Applicant to cover the costs as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. p. "Facility or Facilities" means any tangible asset in the Right-of-Way required to provide Utility Service. q. ��Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such Person or Persons, authorized by a Registrant to accept Service and to make decisions for that Registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this Chapter. r. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managing its Rights-of-Way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering Applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying Right-of-Way permit applications � inspecting job sites s. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a Right-of- Way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the Right-of-Way. t. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained before a Person may obstruct a Right-of-Way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way for the duration specified therein. 8.05 u. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a Permittee to cover the costs as provided in Chapter li of this Code. v. "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A Patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A Patch is considered full Restoration only when the pavement is included in the City's five� year project plan. - >��_. ��_-._ _� �._ ��. _ : - �_ - � � ' _ - - - � - . . . : - - - - - - - - - - �=y• -- ..' _ � =-•�- •s - - - - - x. "Permittee" means any Person to whom a permit to Excavate or Obstruct a Right-of-Way has been granted by the City under this Chapter. y. "Person" means any natural or corporate Person, business association or other business entity including, but not limited to, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a political subdivision, a public or private agency of any kind, a utility, a successor or assign of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity. z. "Probation" means the status of a Person that has not complied with the conditions of this Chapter. aa. "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a Person has been notified in writing that they have been put on Probation. bb. "Repair" means the temporary construction work necessary to make the Right-of-Way useable for travel. cc. "Registrant" means any Person who (1) has or seeks to have its Equipment or Facilities located in any Right-of-Way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks.to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or place its Facilities in the Right-of- • way. dd. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which a Right- of-Way is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. : 1. ee. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the City by a Permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 to PUC rules. �� ff. "Right-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. A Right-of-Way does not include the airwaves above a Right-of-Way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. gg. ��Right-of-Way Permit" means either the Excavation Permit or the Obstruction Permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this Chapter. hh. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes but is not limited to (1) those services provided by a public utility as � defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) telecommunications, pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm communications, electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services; (3) the services provided by a corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minn. Stat. § 300.03; (4) the services provided by a district heating or cooling system; and (5) cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter 238; and a(b) Telecommunication Right-of-Way User as defined in (ii) . ii. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to Excavate or Obstruct more of the Right-of-Way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. jj. "Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User" means a Person owning or controlling a Facility in the Right-of-Way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the Right-of-Way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this Chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chapter 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 216B.02 a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users for purposes of this Chapter. 8.�% kk. "Unusable Facilities" means Facilities in the Right-of-Way which have remained unused for one year and for which the Registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to begin using it within the next twelve (12) months or a potential purchaser or user of the Facilities. 11. "User Fee" is the sum of money, payable to the City, by a person using or occupying the Right-of-Way; provided, however, that the City may at its option provide, at any time by ordinance or by amendment thereto, for a greater or different fee applicable to all such persons in an amount and by a method of determination as may be further provided in such ordinance or amendment thereto. 407.03. ADMINISTRATION 1. Responsibility. The Director is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the Rights-of-Way, Right-of-Way Permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The Director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. - � �_. - . � � - . - - - - - _ - � ... .� . '�-- ��- •. �_ �.. - - :i__ _ .- . � �-_ • --- . - �_ -.i �s�-� • - -. � -� � •� . _ . .. _ � _ � _- • �- - - ' '� .-_,�_ -. . �. . - - _ - -�_ -, �- - ��_ ._ _� _ � _ � � _ � . - .�_ � -� . . .� . �_ �_. -_ �- �- • -� -. . . . . -.i_-s . -�- -- �' - •_ � �-. -_ �-_ .� , _�. .- -.- �- .� �• -y - . � �-• - - - i - • + - - ,��t - . �-' ' �-- •- -.. _. - . _ - -.�- �- �- -s � -. . . 407.4. REGISTRATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY 1. Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right- of-Way or place any Equipment or Facilities in the Right-of-Way, including Persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the Director. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. : 1: 2. Registration Prior to Work. No Person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any Facilities or any part thereof in any Right-of-Way without first being registered with the Director. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a City ordinance permitting Persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the Right-of-Way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the Right-of-Way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits e� s;�rs�—a��—e��te� ==z�=Y°M=^�^ for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this Chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a Person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Stat. Chapter. 216D, "One call" Law. SECTION 407.05. REGISTRATION INFORMATION 1. Information Required. The information provided to the Director at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: a. Each Registrant's name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and E-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. b. The name, address and E-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a Local Representative. , The Local Representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the Local Representative in an Emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. c. A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: 1. Verify that an insurance policy has been issued to the Registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the Director; 2. Verifying that the Registrant is insured against claims for Personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its ' ! • officers, agents, employees and Permittees, and (ii) placement and use of Facilities in the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground Facilities and collapse of property; 3. Naming the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; " 4. Requiring that the Director be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; 5. Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the Director in amounts sufficient to protect the City and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this Chapter. d. The City may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. e. If the Person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under Minn. Stat. § 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. f. A copy of the Person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the Person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said Commission or other state or federal agency. 2. Notice of Changes. The Registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the Director information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the Registrant has knowledge of any change. 3. Grant of Right; Payment of User Fee. Any person required to register under Section 407.04, which furnishes utility services or which occupies, uses, or places its equipment in the right-of-way, is hereby granted a right to do so if and only so long as it (1) timely pays the user fee as provided herein, and (2) 8.10 � � complies with all other requirements of law. This legal entitlement shall not include use of the right-of-way for purposes not in furtherance of furnishing utility services for which additional authorization is required by this Code or other state or federal law, unless the person pays the user fee for such non-utility service use. Such fee shall be paid to the City in substantially equal (quarterly, semi-annual, annual) installments, subject to adjustment and correction at the conclusion of the calendar year. Such fee shall be paid for all and any part of a calendar year, prorated on a daily basis, during any time period in which the said person uses or occupies the right-of-way to furnish utility serviced, or places, maintains or uses its wires, mains, pipes, or any other facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. This section does not apply to a person which uses and occupies the right-of-way for operating its business when there is a pre-existing franchise agreement between that person and the city and the payment of a franchise fees. The grant of such right is expressly conditioned on, and is subject to, continuing compliance with all provisions of law, including this Chapter, 407.06. REPORTING OBLIGATIONS 1. Operations. Each Registrant proposing to work in the city shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground Facilities with the Director. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the Director and shall contain the information determined by the Director to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of Excavations and Obstructions of Rights-of-Way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all Projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a"Next-year Project"); and b. To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated • beginning and ending dates for all Projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "Five-year Praject"). 8.11 � The term "project" in this section shall include both Next-year Projects and Five-year Projects. . By January 1 of each year the Director will have available for inspection in the Director's office a composite list of all Projects of which the Director has been informed in the annual plans. All Registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February 1, each Registrant may change any Project in its list of Next-year Projects, and must notify the Director and all other Registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Registrant may at any time join in a Next-year Project of another Registrant listed by the other Registrant. 2. Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director will not deny an application for a Right-of-Way Permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the City if the Registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. SECTION 407.07. PERMIT REQUIREMENT 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no Person Excavate any Right-of-Way without first having appropriate Right-of-Way Permit from the Director to d a. Excavation Permit. may Obstruct or obtained the o so. An Excavation Permit is required by a Registrant to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the Right-of-Way by placing Facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. b. Obstruction Permit. An Obstruction Permit is required by a Registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An Obstruction Permit is not required if a Person already possesses a valid Excavation Permit for the same project. 18.12 2. Permit Extensions. No Person may Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless such Person (i) makes a Supplementary Application for another Right-of-Way Permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. 3. Delay Penalty. Notwithstanding subd. 2 of this section, the City shall establish and impose a Delay Penalty for unreasonable delays not including davs dur�ng which work cannot be done because of circumstances constitut?na force 1Il�.1'e+�rP or days when work is arohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable in Right-of-Way Excavation, Obstruction, Patching, or Restoration. The Delay Penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the Director. SECTION 407.08. PERMIT APPLICATIONS Application for a permit is made to the Director. Right-of-Way Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions. See ��- a. Registration with the Director pursuant to this Chapter; b. Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed Facilities. c. Paymer�t of money due the City for 1. permit fees, estimated Restoration Costs and other Management Costs; 2. prior Obstructions or Excavations; 3. any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by �he City because of Applicant's prior excavations or 8.13 Obstructions of the rights-of-way or any Emergency actions taken by the City; 4. franchise or user fees, if applicable. d. Payment of disputed amounts due the City by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110� of the amount owing. e. When an Excavation Permit is requested for purposes of installing additional Facilities, and the posting of a Construction Performance Bond for the additional Faci�ities is insufficient, the posting of an additional or larger Construction Performance Bond for the additional Facilities may be required. SECTION 407.09. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS 1. Permit Issuance. - If the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter, the Director shall issue a permit. 2. Conditions. The Director may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the Applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of- way and its current use. SECTION 407.10. PERMIT FEES 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The Excavation Permit Fee shall be established by the Director in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: a. the City Management Costs; b. Degradation Costs, if applicable. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The Obstruction Permit Fee shall be established by the Director and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City Management Costs. 8.14 � 3. Payment of Permit Fees. a. No Excavation Permit or Obstruction Permit shall be issued without payment of Excavation or Obstruction Permit Fees. The City may allow Applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. • � � � - �. • • _ .� _ i • �_!. � �. - • _ � : _. • � • 1! . !.� " ' • /- �_ �S- � • . }' �• • � - • � �-.qSf ' • - � �- ._ � •� • �{ _- •� _ � I - • � � - _ � • � - • - ili - - ' �- _ _ •- - • - • • •�- �-_ �- " -•_ !-� � �,• - • � ••- 4. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the Director has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 407.20 are not refundable. 5. Waiver of Fees. Payment of fees, as identified in this Chapter, with the exception of restoration costs, for water and/or sanitary sewer connections to property in the city are waived. However Registration and the Right- of-way Permit application must be submitted and approved by the city prior to commencement of my work. SECTION 407.11. RIGHT-OF-WAY PATCHING AND RESTORATION 1. Timing. The work to be done under the Excavation Permit, and the Patching and Restoration of the Right-of-Way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be_done because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall Patch its own work. The City may choose either to have the Permittee restore the Right-of-Way or to Restore the �- e�a� �avement itself. a. City Restoration. If the City restores the pavement n��~-^�T, Permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, during the ��}��•�}�—��-;- twenty- f our ( 24 ) months f ol lowing such Restoration, the pavement settles due to Permittee's 8.15 � improper backfilling, the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with having to correct the defective work. b. Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee Restores the Right-of-Way itself, _� ^��_ � Director may rec�uire at the time of application for an Excavation Permit post a Construction Performance Bond in an amount determined by the Director to be sufficient to cover the cost of Restoration. If, within ��}��-s��'�-;- twen y-four (24) months after completion of the Restoration of the Right-of- Way, the Director determines that the Right-of-Way has been properly Restored, the surety on the Construction Performance Bond shall be released. 3. Standards. The Permittee shall perform Patching and Restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the Director. The Director shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the Restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. The Director in exercising this authority shall comply with PUC standards for Right-of-Way Restoration and shall further be guided by the following considerations : ��es � �� 3—E3�gge�t��a� $ ��ettg�--A2} a. The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to the Right-of-Way; b. The traffic volume carried by the Right-of-Way; the character of the neighborhood surrounding the Right-of-Way; c. The pre-excavation condition of the Right-of-Way; the remaining life-expectancy of the Right-of-Way affected by the excavation; d. Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the Permittee is in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way that would otherwise result from the excavation, disturbance or damage to the Right-of-Way; and e. The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowing the depreciation of the Right- of-Way that would otherwise take place. 8.16 # i �a $ � 4. Guarantees. By choosing to Restore the Right-of-Way itself, the Permittee guarantees its work and shall maintain it for ��Y��=_�;v "�` twentv- four l24) months following its completion. During this 3�6 ?�.-month period it shall, upon notification from the Director, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the Director. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the Director, not including days during which work .cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 5. Obligation. Construction triggers an obligation of the right-of-way. user that the right-of-way restoration be completed according to the conditions set forth in this Chapter. The right-of-way user also assumes responsibility for "as built" drawings and for.repairing facilities or structures, including right-of-way that was damaged during facility installation. The obligation is limited to one year for plantings and turf establishment. 6. Failure to Restore. If the Permittee fails to Restore the Right-of-Way in the manner and to the condition required by the Director, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all Restoration required by the Director, the Director at its option may do such work. In that event the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of Restoring the Right-of-Way. If Permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the Construction Performance Bond. 7. Degradation Cost in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of Right-of-Way Restoration, a Right-of-Way user may elect to pay a Degradation Fee with the approval of the Director. However, the Right-of-Way User shall remain responsible for Patching and the Degradation Fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. 8.17 SECTION 407.12. JOINT APPLICATIONS 1. Joint Application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way at the same place and time. 2. With City Projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled Obstruction or Excavation performed by the Director, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more Registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the Obstruction and Degradation portions of the permit fee. 3. Shared Fees. - Registrants who apply for permits for the same Obstruction or Excavation, which the Director does not perform, may share in the payment of the Obstruction or Excavation Permit Fee. Registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. SECTION 407.13. SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATIONS 1. Limitation on Area. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the area of the Right-of-Way specified in the permit. No Permittee may obstruct or do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any Permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be Obstructed or Excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit. extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. 2. Limitation on Dates. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No Permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a Permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This Supplementary Application must be done before the initial permit end date. : : SECTION 407.14. OTHER OBLIGATIONS 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit does not relieve Permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A Permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System"). A Permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the Right-of-Way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an Emergency, and with the approval of the Director, no Right-of-Way Obstruction or Excavation may be done when seasonalYy prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A Permittee shall not so Obstruct a Right-of-Way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the Right-of-Way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with City parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. SECTION 407.15. DENIAL OF PERMIT The Director may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements _ and conditions of this Chapter or if the Director determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use. 1. Mandatory Denial. Except in an emergency, no right-of-way permit will be granted. a. To any person required by Section 407.04 to be registered who has not done so; b. To any person required by Section 407.06 to file an annual report but has failed to do so; • - -- - - - -- - - _ - _! 8.19 �'e� a�t� g�e�ee� ��e� �eq��es ��e e�eav-a��e�-e�-�� ge�e� e€ a�}g�t� e€ w��w�}e� was ee�s��e�;.�-e� �eee�e�e�e� �a rt-� i�r-t-�ie-�� e�e��g-€��*�e-�ea�s-� c. To any person who has failed within the past ��ee-i-� two � years to comply, or is presently not in full compliance, with the requirements of this Chapter. d. To any person as to whom there exists grounds for the revocation of a permit under Section 407.20 or e. If, in the discretion of the Director, the issuance of a permit for the particular date and/or time would cause a conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival, or any other event. The Director, in exercising this discretion, shall be guided by the safety and convenience of ordinary travel of the public over the right- of-way, and by considerations relating to the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Permissive Denial. The Director may deny a permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the right-of-way, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its users. The Director, in her or his discretion, may consider one or more of the following factors: a. the extent to which right-of-way space where the permit is sought is available; b. the competing demands for the particular space in the right- of -way; c. the availability of other locations in the right-of-way or in other rights-of-way for the equipment of the permit applicant; d. the applicability of ordinance or other regulations of the right-of-way that affect location of equipment in the right- of-way; e. the degree of compliance of the applicant with the terms and conditions of its franchise, this Chapter, and other applicable ordinances and regulations; $.20 f. the degree of disruption to surrounding communities neighborhoods and businesses that will result from the use of that part of the right-of-way; g. the condition and age of the right-of-way, and whether and when it is scheduled for total or partial reconstruction; and h. the balancing of the costs of disruption to the public and damage .to the right-of-way, against the benefits to that part of the public served by the expansion into additional parts of the right-of-way. 3. Discretionary Issuance. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section subd. 1, '^` ��a ''", the Director may issue a permit in any case where the permit is necessary (a) to prevent substantial economic hardship to a customer of the permit applicant, or (b) to allow such customer to materially improve its utility service, or (c) to allow a new economic development project, or otherwise required by law; and where the permit applicant did not have knowledge of the hardship, the plans for improvement of service, or the development project when said applicant was required to submit its list of Next-year Projects. 4. Permits for Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section subd. 1{e} above, the Director may issue a permit to a registrant who was allowed under Section 407.07 Subd. 2, to submit an additional Next-year Project, such permit to be subject to all conditions and requirements of law, including such conditions as may be imposed under Section 407.09. SECTION 407.16. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS The excavation, backfilling, patching, repair, and restoration, and all other work performed in the Right-of-Way shall be done in conformance with Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC or other applicable local_requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with PUC Rules. SECTION 407.17. INSPECTION 1. Notice of Completion. Unless waived by the city, a person designated by the right-of-way user as a responsible employee shall sign a completion certificate showing the completion date for the work performed, identifying the 8.21 � installer and designer of record, and certifying that work was completed according to the requirements of the city. If necessary due to approved changes for the work as projected when the permit was applied for, the permittee shall submit "as built" drawings or maps within six months of completing the work, showing any deviations from the plan that are greater than plus or minus two feet. The city shall respond ;within 30 days of receipt of the completion certificate. Failure to approve or disapprove the permittee's performance within 30 days is deemed to be approval by the city.. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available_to the Director and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. 3. Authority of Director. a. At the time of inspection the Director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. b. The Director may issue an order to the Permittee for any work which does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the Permittee shall present proof to the Director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the Director may revoke the permit pursuant to Section 407.20. SECTION 407.18. WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT 1. Emergency Situations. Each Registrant shall immediately notify the Director of any event regarding its Facilities which it considers to be an Emergency. The Registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the Emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the Emergency the Registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Chapter for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. �� If the Director becomes aware of an Emergency regarding a Registrant's Facilities, the Director will attempt to contact the Local Representative of each Registrant affected, or potentially affected by the Emergency. In any event, the Director may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the Emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the Registrant whose Facilities occasioned the Emergency. 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an Emergency, any Person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, Obstructs or Excavates a Right-of-Way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the Legislative Code, deposit with the Director the fees necessary to correct any damage to the Right-of-Way and _comply with all of the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 407.19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIFICATION If the Obstruction or Excavation of the Right-of-Way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, Permittee shall notify the Director of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. SECTION 407.20. REVOCATION OF PERMITS 1. Substantial Breach. The City reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any Right- of-Way Permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by Permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a. The violation of any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit; b. An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit, or. the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; c. Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a Right-of-Way Permit; d. The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to 8.23 complete work is due to reasons beyond the Permittee's control; or e. The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an Order issued pursuant to Section 407.16. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the Director determines that the Permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit the Director shall make a written demand upon the Permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the Director, at his or her discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, Permittee shall provide the Director with a plan, acceptable to the Director, that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the Director, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, Permittee's failure to so contact the Director, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1) full year. 4. Cause for Probation. From time to time, the Director may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one full year, such as, but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on Right-of-Way grossly outside of the permit authorization. 5. Automatic Revocation. If a Permittee, while on Probation, commits a breach as outlined above, Permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and Permittee will not be allowed further permits for one full year, except for Emergency repairs. 6. Reimbursement of City Costs. 8.24 If a permit is revoked, the Permittee shall also reimburse the City for the City's reasonable costs, including Restoration Costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. SECTION 407.21. MAPPING DATA l. Information Required. Each Registrant shall provide Mapping information required by the Director to include the following information: a. location and approximate depth of applicant's mains, cables, conduits, switches, and related equipment and facilities, with the location based on: - 1. offsets from property lines, distances from the centerline of the public right—of-way, and curb lines as determined by the city; or 2. coordinates derived from the coordinate system being used by the city; or 3. any other system agreed upon by the right-of-way user and city; b. the type and size of the utility; c. a description showing above-ground appurtenances; d. a legend explaining symbols, characters, abbreviations, scale, and other data shown on the map; and e. Mapping data shall be provided with the specificity requested by the Director for inclusion in the mapping system used by the city. 2. Submittal Requirement. a. Within six (6) months after the acquisition, installation, or construction of additional equipment or any relocation, abandonment, or disuse of existing equipment, each registrant shall submit the Mapping Data required herein. b. Within two (2) years after the date of passage of this Chapter, all right-of-way users shall submit detailed plans as may be reasonable and practical for all facilities and equipment installed, used or abandoned within the public right-of-way. $.2rJ c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mapping Data shall be submitted by all Registrants for all equipment which is to be installed or constructed after the date of passage of this Chapter at the time any permits are sought under these ordinances. d. Six (6) months after the passage of this Chapter, a new Registrant, or a Registrant which has not submitted a plan as required above, shall submit complete and accurate Mapping Data for all its equipment at the time any permits are,sought under these ordinances. � 3. Telecommunication Equipment. Information on existing facilities and equipment of telecommunications right-of-way users need only be supplied in the form maintained by the telecommunications right-of-way user. 4. Trade Secret Information. At the request of any Registrant, any information requested by the Director, which qualifies as a"trade-secret" under Minn. Stat. § 13.37(b) shall be treated as trade secret information as detailed therein. SECTION 407.22. LOCATION OF FACILITIES 1. Undergrounding. Unless otherwise permitted by an existing franchise or Minn. Stat. § 216B.34 or unless existing above-ground Facilities �-s �re u�graded, repaired or replaced, new construction and the installation of new Facilities and replacement of old Facilities shall be done underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes unless waived by the Director for good cause shown. 2. Corridors. The Director may assign specific corridors within the Right-of-Way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of Facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the Director expects will someday be located within the Right-of-Way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the Director involving the installation or replacement of Facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the Facilities at issue. Any Registrant who has Facilities in the Right-of-Way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the Director shall, no 8.26 later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where the Facilities are located, move the Facilities to the assigned position within the �xcavation of the Right-of-Way, unless this requirement is waived by the Director for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the Facilities, public safety, customer Service. needs and hardship to the Registrant. 3 . ,,T„ _ . , , , . ,��ts�ea��e a; �... 3. Limitation of Space. To protect public health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use, the Director shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Facilities within the Right-of-Way. In making such decisions, the Director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the Right-of-Way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular Utility Service, the condition of the Right-of-Way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing Facilities in the Right-of-Way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. SECTION 407.23. RELOCATION OF FACILITIES A Registrant must promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently remove and relocate its Facilities in the Right-of-Way whenever the Director for good cause requests such removal and relocation, and shall restore the Right-of- Way to the same condition it was in prior to said removal or relocation. The Director may make such request to prevent interference by the Company's Equipment or Facilities with (i) a present or future City use of the Right-of-Way, (ii) a public improvement undertaken by the City, (iii) an economic development project in which the City has an interest or investment, (iv) when the public health, safety and welfare require it, or (v) when necessary to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the Right-of-Way. 8.27 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Person shall not be required to remove or relocate its Facilities from any Right-of-Way which has been vacated in favor of a non-governmental entity unless and until the reasonable costs thereof are first paid to the Person therefor. SECTION 407.24. PRE-EXCAVATION FACILITY AND FACILITIES LOCATION In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any Right-of-Way excavation, each Registrant who has Facilities or Equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and approximate vertical placement of all said Facilities. Any Registrant whose Facilities is less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its Facilities and the best procedure for excavation. SECTION 407.25. DAMAGE TO OTHER FACILITIES When the Director does work in the Right-of-Way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a Registrant's Facilities to protect it, the Director shall notify the Local Representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that Registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any Facilities in the Right-of-Way which it or its Facilities damages. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the Facilities of another Registrant caused during the City's response to an Emergency occasioned by that Registrant's Facilities. SECTION 407.26. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 1. Reservation of Right. zf the City vacates a Right-of-Way which contains the Facilities of a Registrant, and if the vacation does not require the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities, the City shall reserve, to and for itself and all Registrants having Facilities in the vacated Right- of-Way, the right to install, maintain and operate any Facilities in the vacated Right-of-Way and to enter upon such Right-of-Way at any time for the purpose of reconstructing, inspecting, maintaining or repairing the same. �� _ _ � 2. Relocation of Facilities. If the vacation requires the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities; and (i) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the Registrant or Permittee, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs; or (ii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the Registrant or Permittee; or (iii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a Person or Persons other than the Registrant or Permittee, such other Person or Persons must pay the relocation costs. SECTION 407.27. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY By registering with the Director, or by accepting a permit under this Chapter, a Registrant or Permittee agrees as follows: 1. Limitation of Liability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of a Right- of-Way Permit, the City does not assume any liability (i) for injuries to Persons, damage to property, or loss of Service claims by parties other than the Registrant or the City, or (ii) for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of Facilities by Registrants or activities of Registrants. 2. Indemnification. A Registrant or Permittee shall indemnify, keep, and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to Persons or damage to property occasioned by the issuance of permits or by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection or operation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities located in the Right-of-Way. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the local government unit's negligence as to the issuance of permits or inspections to ensure permit compliance. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts that the Registrant or Permittee reasonably believes will cause injury or damage, and the performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by the City after receiving notice of the Registrant's or Permittee's determination. 3. Defense. If a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where the Registrant or Permittee is required to indemnify, the Registrant or 8.29 Permittee, at its sole cost and expense, shall defend the City in the suite if written notice of the suite is promptly given to the Registrant or Permittee within a period in which the Registrant or Permittee is not prejudiced by the lack or delay of notice. If the Registrant or Permittee is required to indemnify and defend, it shall thereafter have control of the litigation, but the Registrant or Permittee may not settle the litigation without the consent of the City. Consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This part is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense, immunity, or damage limitation otherwise available to the City. In defending an action on behalf of the City the Registrant or Permittee is entitled to assert in an action_every defense, immunity, or damage limitation that the City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 407.28. ABANDONED AND UNUSABLE FACILITIES 1. Discontinued Operations. A Registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations in the City must either: 2. a. Provide information satisfactory to the Director that the Registrant's obligations for its Facilities in the Right-of- Way under this Chapter have been lawfully assumed by another Registrant; or b. Submit to the Director a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership of its Facilities to the City. If a Registrant proceeds under this clause, the City may, at its option: 1 � purchase the Facilities; or require the Registrant, at its own expense, to remove it; or 3. require the sufficient anticipated Facilities. Abandoned Facilities. Registrant to post a bond in an amount to reimburse the City for reasonably costs to be incurred in removing the Facilities of a Registrant who fails to comply with subd. 1 of this Section, and which, for two (2) years, remains unused or one year �fter the tiassaae of this Chaa�Pr any Facilit�Ps found in a Right of 8.30 ]r�.�► that have not been ReQistered with the city shall be deemed to be abandoned. Abandoned Facilities is deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has as law or in equity, including, but not limited to, (i) abating the nuisance, (ii) taking possession of the Facilities and restoring � rhP RiQht-of-Wav to a useable condition, or (iii) requiring removal of the Facilities by the Registrant, or the Registrant's successor in interest. 3. Removal. Any Registrant who has unused, unusable and abandoned Facilities in any Right-of-Way shall remove it from that Right-of-Way within and during the next scheduled excavation, unless this requirement is waived by the Director. SECTION 407.29. APPEAL a. A Right-of-Way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are invalid, may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the City Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the City Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. b. Upon affirmation by the City Council of the denial, revocation, or fee imposition, the Right-of-Way User shall have the right to have the matter resolved by binding arbitration if agreed to by the city. Binding arbitration must be before an arbitrator agreed to by both the City Council and Right-of-Way User. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the matter must be resolved by a three- person arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator selected by the City, one arbitrator selected by the Right-of-Way User and one selected by the other two arbitrators. The costs and fees of a single arbitrator shall be borne equally by the City and Right-of-Way User. In the event there is a third arbitrator, each party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator and shall jointly and equally bear with the other party the expense of the third arbitrator and of the arbitration. 8.31 SECTION 407.30. RESERVATION OF REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS A Permittee's or Registrant's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. SECTION 407.31. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. zf a regulatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction should determine by a final, non-appealable order that _any permit, right or registration issued under this Chapter or any portions of this Chapter is illegal or unenforceable, then any such permit, right or registration granted or deemed to exist hereunder shall be considered as a revocable permit with a mutual right in either party to terminate without cause upon giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other. The requirements and conditions of such a revocable permit shall be the same requirements and conditions as set forth in the permit, right or registration, respectively, except for conditions relating to the term of the permit and the right of termination. Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the Applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. CHAPTER 11, GENER.AL PROVISIONS AND FEES Section 11.10 "Fees" is amended to include the following: 48� ��e�av��}e� �� P��e �a�� 'ee �'�� s e€ ..a �.. .. �e,�e�-�-�e�-�'ee �''—�Q - -- - _ --- --- •- -- ... .. _ -- -: - -- - - • - - - . .. .. '� �' �-• •� -- ' � � •� - �� •• • -�� 8.32 �� • - -_�. � •_ t. - • - a � ' 1 11 � _ ' -•' '�-� - _ • " " � � � _ �I.� - • -�' 11�- -• • •-• • -- . �- - �'. � - � � - �-- "� •� - � � .- -�- � -� �-. _•_ •� •- �� - -- '- •-� _- • SLI" - _ • �• 8.33 �� -,� _ - -�- .� �'•�_ - �� .- -��-� .- .- .i__ - .. �'. . .• . �- . �_ .- •. . _�- t�._ -. . �. - �'. .�. •� .- �'. �.� - - - - - • lif - PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 1 I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: David Hoeschen, Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has requested a plat to allow a new Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57�' Avenue NE. The plat requested will include 2 lots. Each lot meets the minimum standards of the C-3, General Shopping District. If approved, a new Holiday Stationstore will be constructed on Lot 1(1.26 acres) at the south-east corner of Main Street and 57`h Avenue NE, and the existing Holiday Plus Store will be on Lot 2(15.85 acres).. � RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of Plat Request PS #98-01 with the following stipulations: 1. Pending approval of VAR #98-03, and approval of 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 right-of- way necessary to complete the 57th Avenue improvement projects as shown on the City's improvement plan dated February 3, 1998. 4. The petitioner shall agree to restrict access to the 3 locations shown on the City's plan for 57�' Avenue improvements dated February 3`d, 1998. 5. The petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee at 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 2"d Addition shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the stationstore building. RECOMMENDATION FOT THE CITY COUNCIL Concur with the Planning Commission 9.01 � PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS: Petition For: Location of Property: Legai Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: A plat to allow for a separate parcel for the construction of a Holiday Station Store. 242 57"' Avenue NE Future Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 2"d Addition Proposed Lot 1, 1.2643 Acres, Lot 2, 15.8507 Acres Relatively flafi with incline areas near Main Street and 57tn Avenue Urban lawn and landscape C-3, General Shopping, to be platted as Holiday North 2nd Addition New sewer and water services are to be located in 57th Avenue NE. 57th Avenue NE New sidewalk proposed along 57th Avenue NE Engineered calculations will need to be submitted indicating that there will be no net gain in the storm water run-off from this site. If a net gain is revealed, storm ponding will be required. It is likely that there may not be a gain because that area where this store is proposed is currently asphalt. The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this location. 9.02 PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 3 Public Hearing Comments: ADJACENT SITES: To be taken WEST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping SOUTH: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping EAST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping NORTH: Zoning: C-2, General Business Site Planning Issues: REQUEST: Land Use: Home Depot Land Use: Holiday Plus Land Use: Parking for Holiday Plus and the Cattle Company Restaurant Land Use: Commercial David Hoeschen, has requested a plat to allow a new Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57t'' Avenue NE. The plat as proposed would include two lots and would be called Holiday North 2"d Addition. Mr. Hoeschen has been involved in some of the discussions regarding the 57�' Avenue improvements. At the time of his submittal, Mr. Hoeschen was not aware of how much additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate the new streetscape north of this proposal. As street improvements have been planned for 57�' Avenue NE, an additional 18.4' of right-of-way will be required on the smaller of the two lots. 30.2 feet of additional right-of-way will also be required along the 57`h Avenue edge of the larger (Holiday Plus) lot east of the main driveway to the site. As is typical with the platting process, if developmenUredevelopment creates or contributes to, additional right-of- way needs, a dedication of that right-of-way will occur at the time of the plat. Staff recommends the dedication of the necessary right-of-way in conjunction with this plat. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: 9.03 PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 4 On January 31, 1966 a building permit was issued for the 162,000 s.f. Holiday retail building at 250 57t'' Avenue NE. Erickson Petroleum Corporation owned all the property abutting 57th Avenue NE between University Avenue and Main Street. Over time the Hardees site, Stuart Anderson's Cattle Company, Good Year Tire, and other sites were sold to other individuals or entities. Erickson's Petroleum had a motor fuel/convenience store operation further north on University Avenue (current pawn shop location). Motor fuel/convenience was not successful without direct access to and from University and the operation closed. Holiday has been very interested in a new motor fuel operation in this area since the closing of their University store. On June 20, 1994, The City Council approved a request for a variance by Holiday Plus. This variance was to allow construction of a loading dock facing the public right-of-way. The City Council approved the variance with 6 stipulations. Holiday Plus built the loading dock and has complied with 5 of the 6 stipulations. The 6`h stipulation was to assure that Holiday would submit a plan to clean-up and landscape the site in a more appealing manner. The City has urged Holiday to complete that plan and continues to hold a$20,000.00 bond to assure the improvements are made. Mr. Hoeschen has attempted to lease the area (behind Holiday facing the interstate). To date, Mr. Hoeschen's efforts have not resulted in a tenant. Mr. Hoeschen does realize that a plan is necessary to clean-up and landscape the site and he has kept the communication open with staff since the approval of the variance in 1994. As a stipulation of the current variances (requested of the Appeals Commission), staff has suggested that the clean-up/landscape plan and plant material installation happen simultaneous with the construction of the stationstore. ANALYSIS: General To allow a Holiday Stationstore on this site, a plat, special use permit, and 2 variances would be required. External Factors The City of Fridley has plans to improve 57th Avenue this summer. As a result of the improvements, the City will be required to utilize additional land area in front of most of all of the businesses on 57�' Avenue. Front yard setbacks along 57th will now range from 35' at Burger King to 75' at the Cattle Company. Directly across 57t'' Avenue from the proposed Station Store, will be a new building by Steve Linn, Linn Properties. Mr. Linn's building will have a very similar setback to that which would result if the Holiday Station store were to be developed as proposed. The varying setbacks along 57th will cause a diminished setback at the Station Store to appear more appropriate than if all �� PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 5 setbacks along the corridor were the standard 80' required in the C-3, General Shopping District. Mr. Hoeschen has indicated that the City's plans to improve 57`h Avenue caused the Holiday design people to re-evaluate how they would develop their Stationstore site. Factors such as semi-truck circulation, Holiday Plus customer circulation, and current and future structure visibility were all taken into account. The end result of the design analysis was that the Station store should be built as close to the corner of 57`h and main Street as possible. Parking Parking has been designed in a manner that allows a shared arrangement between the principle Holiday Store and the Holiday Station Store. Staff has observed that currently, customers do not park out in or near the north west corner of the Holiday parking lot. Therefore, the redevelopment impacts to the lot will not be detrimental to the customers of the principle store. 30 spaces are require for the 4466 s.f. Station Store. With the pump island stalls, 31 spaces have been provided. As redesigned, 770 spaces are available to the two sites. Using the Code prescribed, speculative ratio of 1 space/200 s.f. of building (typical for a multi-use complex), 832 spaces would be required. However, the current store parking configuration has 832 parking spaces and 200 of those spaces are not utilized behind Holiday Plus. Furthermore, 65 spaces are available on the east end of the Holiday Plus building, and 54 are rarely used at the west end of the Holiday Plus building. Subtracting those stalls that are never used on the south end of the site from both the required stall counts leaves 632 spaces available on site. With 31 years of history on this site, staff recommends eliminating 200 parking stalls on the south side of the building. Adequate area exists on site to meet the code (proof of parking); however, it is imperative that the south side of the site take on a new look since this area is a major entrance to the City. Staff has recommended that Holiday honor their 1994 variance stipulation to provide a clean-up/landscape plan for the Holiday site. Staff believes that the elimination of the parking from the south side of the building, combined with the addition of landscape materials where that parking had once been would be an appropriate solution for a major portion of the clean up of this site Cross-Parking A cross-parking and cross driveway easement document should be required as part of this plat approval to assure continued shared use of the drive aisles and parking spaces for both Holiday Plus and the Holiday Stationstore. Access Restriction 9.05 PLAT #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 6 To assure the 57th Avenue issue of too many access locations onto the roadway do not reoccur, staff recommends that access restriction language be �led with the plat. The approved access locations would only be those shown on the City's plan dated February 3, 1998. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION• The Planning Commission recommended approval of Plat Request PS #98-01 with the following stipulations: 1. Pending approval of VAR #98-03, and approval of 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 right-of- way necessary to complete the 57t'' Avenue improvement projects as shown on the City's improvement plan dated February 3, 1998. 4. The petitioner shall agree to restrict access to the 3 locations shown on the City's plan for 57th Avenue improvements dated February 3`d, 1998. 5. The petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee at 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 2"d Addition shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the stationstore building. � RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL Concur with the Planning Commission. . � •� Z L � � 0 � ,� a � � � N Q= Q� �o WZ �a � J O 2 � s $S f^t { a� � aa � �. 3 g: � �¥ _ � ) S a6 EgF. ° 5 -5 4 ° �¢a E�'��e^� 4�ga a6 $ e iis 'is `;s s�s$ �� " :� fi 8�5�"�� ie a� S �a 4�� fi� ' 6x�8 is a €5 �^°; b5,6Yby °¢C �� 3 :: ': .s€a�ge �° : :�� ia �� fi4�,$a5Y ��aa �g�� ° �� e 3�a.�a�a i��F a._ � % � �°, €R$-�°'�' ��}6Y � �e aE ��:, °�2:- - ii a$� �b Fg fs�a °z��n�'e ��";t s 4 6a$ 4 4a ia';3 ��4.;�YRT ��:� sfi� �: �� s�e° G��": °" "dfi"I� �'�:�', =a Yi:B di's�;��o 'ii§s (�lv�l'NH� V.u�tlY71 Lb 'ON 1�t1MHJIH 31d1S ,,, ,,..�°.,:: - :� , ,�. , � � 3.I[.r0.05 -c nrsn a�evn� I ,�� ci C�_ _-:�+ � � y�I �� t -- �„� b ^I � 1�� HC ]v�i �4 _� � �t� (7 O-�% pe I a��egS �C \C� _ Ne� � �' . ��'abak _.- \ . ....C7 � . � � � l I I e a a? I e4 ' 4� ` I � `, f --- ^�� . a a� � e =3 a° � � _ »'�x _°a8 � �$� � : aa � � 35 i? �ii a ,� Y �,�� S ; � ��a } 6 �8� �! ;.3 �� '`! as I�g � ::�f E� � QS^R g�� i 6°� ;�-' : � !":s i i{gl $ s°aa � 3 ija; � �YbS d � ° 9 ' q�6 e� 8�: i� ��6 :�� :€ 's=: ?55 I� z a�! & � a' ^�R =.E Sa� s :° °€€s 4 � „ �a �;i( g � � s� ?'a�' . iE�; „ '1 ��a :��s a � ma a j t § �fi 3 � = � -§ a ' g c=�� :. . a: gi="ss�'yf�s:€ E ��i =e g �9g$s�€='Ii,�F`�FE$:te:e a'a s$�3i 3��8�_3�aaFY�z3::.#>sbbt��;t5fii) ii3i:iiiii7i' LII377LfL'iE:iii7: � ��a�aee��e goe��e�€ . � N � �asM.e;�=t,s.e:£I9°a��e�s�.xeg.. s � R � �7—�--� a � � �� ! w �+ `' y6 �c � � 's y �� ; r or� � �� y .,, � 6� '�, r J �.0 2 � � � � � P � �% • f �� a Ig � J a lo eC Z O Q � � Q �Z N _� WO �Q _I � _ � a i � t `� 3 � � F i F i €€ d � ? � s t . � 6 f a �a t � i'� � � �i � � i : � � � i s � � � � - 6 6 � I �a = �a J ;F . . =5 � jI; 6 "s� ie i; a3 :�$ ,�!s ast :s. a�� ay� a t�;� ea� 9 � R �4�—Q ; ' A M � i u � � � � ��7r.� �1" � � � ,; 9.08 ..a.. 'i �� , � � ,, ;, '' �� — � . a�.,_ .,___.�` W N N O N W � e a � ; � * � { � ; SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 1 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: David Hoeschen, Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has requested a Special Use Permit to allow a motor fuel operation and car wash at the Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57�' Avenue NE. If approved, a new Holiday Stationstore will be constructed at the south-east comer of Main Street and 57"' Avenue NE. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: i The zoning on this site is C-3, General Shopping Center. As such, a special use permit is required for both motor fuel operations and car wash facilities. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit Request SP #98-01 with the following stipulations: � 1. Approval of the special use permit is subject to the approval of PS #98-01 and pending approval of VAR #98-03. 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 informational signage on-site to assure proper flow of traffic around the building and to assure that cars waiting to be washed do not block access from 57�' Avenue NE. 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 does not carry beyond Stationstore prope�ty. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL: Concur with the Planning Commission. 10.01 SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS: Petition For: A special use permit to allow for a motor fuel and car wash operation at a Holiday Station Store proposed for the south- east comer of Main Street and 57t'' Avenue. Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive 242 57�' Avenue NE e Future Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 2"d Addition Proposed Lot 1, 1.2643 Acres, Lot 2, 15.8507 Acres Relatively flat with incline areas near Main Street and 57�' Avenue Urban lawn and landscape C-3, General Shopping, to be platted as Holiday North 2nd Addition New sewer and water services are to be located in 57t'' Avenue NE. 57t'' Avenue NE New sidewalk proposed along 57th Avenue NE Engineered calculations will need to be submitted indicating that there will be no net gain in the storm water run-off from this site. If a net gain is revealed, storm ponding will be required. It is likely that there may not be a gain because that area where this store is proposed is currently asphalt. The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this 10.02 SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 3 Planning issues: Public Hearing Comments: ADJACENT SITES: location. To be taken WEST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping SOUTH: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping EAST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping NORTH: Zoning: C-2, General Business Site Planning Issues: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Land Use: Home Depot Land Use: Holiday Plus Land Use: Parking for Holiday Plus and the Cattle Company Restaurant Land Use: Commercial David Hoeschen, Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has requested a Special Use Permit to allow a motor fuel operation and car wash at the Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57th Avenue NE. If approved, a new Holiday Stationstore will be constructed at the south-east comer of Main Street and 57th Avenue NE SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: On January 31, 1966 a building permit was issued for the 162,000 s.f. Holiday retail building at 250 57t'' Avenue NE. Erickson Petroleum Corporation owned all the property abutting 57th Avenue NE between University Avenue and Main Street. Over time the Hardees site, Stuart Anderson's Cattle Company, Good Year Tire, and other sites were sold to other individuals or entities. Erickson's Petroleum had a motor fuel/convenience store operation further north on University Avenue (current pawn shop location). Motor fuel/convenience was not successful without direct access to and from University and the operation closed. Holiday has been very interested in a new motor fuel operation in this area since the closing of their University store. 10.03 SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 4 On June 20, 1994, the City Council approved a request for a variance by Holiday Plus to allow construction of a loading dock facing the public right-of-way. The City Council approved the variance with 6 stipulations. Holiday Plus built the loading dock and has complied with 5 of the 6 stipulations. The 6th stipulation was to assure that Holiday would submit a plan to clean-up and landscape the site in a more appealing manner. The City has urged Holiday to complete that plan and continues to hold a$20,000.00 bond to assure the improvements are made. Mr. Hoeschen has attempted to lease the area (behind Holiday facing the interstate). To date, Mr. Hoeschen's efforts have not resulted in a tenant. Mr. Hoeschen does realize that a plan is necessary to clean-up and landscape the site and he has kept the communication open with staff since the approval of the variance in 1994. As a stipulation of the current variances (requested of the Appeals Commission), staff has suggested that the clean-up/landscape plan and plant material installation happen simultaneous with the construction of the stationstore. ANALYSIS: General To allow a Holiday Stationstore on this site, a plat, special use permit, and 2 variances would be required. External Factors The City of Fridley has plans to improve 57`h Avenue this summer. As a result of the improvements, the City will be required to utilize additional land area in front of most of all of the businesses on 57th Avenue. Front yard setbacks along 57th wifl now range from 35' at Burger King to 75' at the Cattle Company. Directly across 57th Avenue from the proposed Station Store, will be a new building by Steve Linn, Linn Properties. Mr. Linn's building will have a very similar setback to that which would result if the Holiday Station store were to be developed as proposed. The varying setbacks along 57th will cause a diminished setback at the Station Store to appear more appropriate than if all setbacks along the corridor were the standard 80' required in the C-3, General Shopping District. Mr. Hoeschen has indicated that the City's plans to improve 57th Avenue caused the Holiday design people to re-evaluate how they would develop their Stationstore site. Factors such as semi-truck circulation, Holiday Plus customer circulation, and current and future structure visibility were all taken into account. The end result of the design analysis was that the Station store should be built as close to the corner of 57t'' and main Street as possible. Proposed Plan 10.04 SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 5 The proposed plan indicates a 4,466 s.f. convenience store and car wash combination. The building will be constructed of a combination of brick and block. The roof of the proposed building will be a hip roof, rather than a typical flat roof, as can be observed on similar motor fuel convenience operations elsewhere. A new access drive location will be created as part of the 57�' Avenue improvements. Two existing Holiday access drives will be eliminated as part of this reconstruction. The new access drive location. allows for a 14 car stacking distance from the access drive at 57�' Avenue, to the car wash door. Information signage shall be provided by the petitioner to assure that stacking beyond 14 cars will not cause a conflict at the access point from 57th Avenue. Landscape A landscape plan has been submitted. Minor modi�cations will be required to assure that the new plan works well with the landscape plan proposed as part of the 57tn Avenue improvement project. � Irrigation shall be installed to assure the vitality of the plant material proposed for this project. To assure completion of the outdoor improvement projects, the City typically requires a bond in the amount of 3% of the construction cost of the building costs. This bond shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for this facility. Outdoor Storage Section 205.14.01.0 (5), limits the outdoor storage of inerchandise between the pumps and within 4 feet of the building. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of Special Use Permit Request SP #98-01 with the following stipulations: 1. Pending approval of VAR #98-03, and approval of 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 atl outdoor sales and storage provisions of Chapter 205 ofi the City Code. 7. The petitioner shall install all waste trap and filtration devices as required by the Building Code for Car Wash facilities . 10.05 SUP #98-01, 242 57th Avenue NE Page 6 8. The petitioner shall install adequate informational signage on-site to assure proper flow of traffic around the building and to assure that cars waiting to be washed do not block access from 57`h Avenue NE. 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 does not carry beyond the Stationstore property. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL Concur with the Planning Commission 10.06 � � i � C o.i � _ � � � � ! * C rS � � �� i—' 'li �1��1� li I � � i��!',� . �� 3 � 03 �� , �� ,+��.: � � � � �i ��. �.u_d... ��, i � s ,,,.� ..,.. .-_ '� .. ' `i � !A � .e� 3.._�. �-.�; : . � ":.,� �. � � ++ 's� ' _ a�+ , �, ! ! i. t � � 1 � � . � �wrr... �ur. , � � � -�� 1 � � 1 .,��I�� r � a - I��,�� - � : _ ,�,� :� � `��=�� ti1�i � �� ! � � :� �:: �:�6 :�: � 3��i'�� -��,� \�;<: ,I� =0 � � a.a';` l3 . ,.z�: � ':;. ��,nf . � .,.�..... � ;:a: 3 $��dM1�� o:. ��m'g�} 1�R �� S�.�i..1.� ` � 8 16 $ 8 �' �%� � �' ,�., � �'�r�9�?S a=��ti... '�? �.� .!" � �=::. �. w�� a,� a d a��"�� . � a.•.�._ � _, a .€meaJ �9_ �":: � _� 1 � ao� � '�o � '3a�►v �rs � � #�16� � � � � ��9� € � � 1 � ■ ��¢ � � x � � �� s �� i�' � �� , �� § � �� ¢ �� 3�� € � � �� R� � ��_ �� R� =R;� e �� s�� t� � �� I � , � �; - , I ► �� ! ' ;� �t i i' I� � �� S{Y ��i i i� -{ �. �. � I 1 � a � �'r" ,� t�i �� i �� 1, ,`�i -!;—�}–jE. � • I !� � J� i� �� i� �'( i i I� — I � = �-_ J ii � u li !J ;. 1i � I � I `,�,, , � I � :;, � ; ,�,�,,�,_�„ , . , i :r, ; , ; , , ,; � ; ,, �� ,; I �j -- ^� — -, =-a, , -,i--,� �+.. � !i- � I � � � �� I ' 1 i ,i . � � J �, ��; � � , ( I I 1 I � I j'� i� �; '- 1' n � r r � .�� ,�� , i,' i � j ;i i i , i, I �� '� a � � I'" � � � J �.t--� —�+—;,--iF—,s �I .1! --, 'i��.;,--�I�'r- � � �; � ) ; � �� ;' ,; �, ;! � !; �j ;i � � „ � .� _ a• �� .� . � u il i �; .i i � � I I "'a i� � , Q ?- � ��; N 'I N ' h I3 R C} 1� I I 1 ■ a�� o��a � ��g�� g �Id � �:��:� �� . r �,,;��` . �� '' �� .�.� � : : �� „ �K ££'LBL — x aari --�}-�«K,r-- oN avoa ,�iNno�) 10.08 �� R � .� .� � ;� � � �� O m 0 O � ? N X w v `�. Fl1MON �ON' E� / � 0 � � � w �a d �o U Q � � _ � � J i / � / � i� � � i c � � � � � �� a �� 3; :_ F$ : i _ � � � � � ' € _ _ ii e�� # j e i � E� � �F �j s ; � , � �� ! � i 'a � ,�ttt ]]li� M3 �f • � i �! �°A �� i � ' �_ � ;� ��# �� s�� G� �� i �*f °� '� � � �41 �°� ii �� o z�s :�s � �� E� � � i�g a�� ='? w ? a ? f�� t�� _ 2 � �� E� i` � I �i �i �� a� ��8 � ��•-• � ; �tl•-- � (zai �oN avoa A1Nno�) � � � � �� i � E�j „ �� t �� , �� ' : f��is� f \ _ s--,�„� t s �,� 10.09-,Y�. � ,.�. � � � a s . A � � � ��` �.� � NW'�IP!�J ��,� =a`�; ' �I ° ' � ��.; i � � ZOl � 'Pa '�WJ'8 '3'N '�d 4tL5 �, �1: ;��;� �� , ' � �� 1iw; o � �lS �ABiS � �� Id �l!19f1 �� ai' i - ! Y g � e � ., 4 �. rea! T.. �� s b��t� y� � � � _ � w w!�s.E» �A $ p� '�� j� - _ ' '_- ' _ _ - _ = _ 3 _ " --_�-_ - -' _ '-�2 =_' - _ _ ' " _ _ _ - c-= '_ - - � _ �; _ _ __ � _ ' _ _ic�v _ .± � . * ;. . ; � : ' � ��- � _ t� V� _ �: � .�;= � —A^_� - - % Yi a; _ '.��5 _� . _ - 5% -_ __' � - a . .:, ' �_.,�_s_, 3�._....: _ ' "8�. z a.; 4 : .. ' .i i� Y � II �"�v �i I tl I il � �. I � I �� I � II i i� I I• i� i ':� I ; � I 'I i � `I� I� �I � � ^I � � I I �I I� ��i � � ~I� :`� ;�� -�� , ; � �� ;� � - - � J u � u I n i� � ^ ; - - , - - . 'I /('�\ , I 'I I � � I 'I ,'( �I`.�_�'�� li '�.�L_ �_� I� _� �L I + �l -� 'I � � �� I J II ;I � � _ _ .. � _ _ J � J 1 �j I �I ! M � ��li �.. I ��{ II i� I � il � �I �1 � � I i ii � I i I' i I Ij. J I i �I . {I I � i Ili JII` i il il i��~ i�� I� �% ` - � � - ' - _ !J � � � I _ i I J � ''; � ,� ; � - � �- -- _ ��; � � � �l ----------------- � ��. �� N N � � - �� .� i i IK I x ' � � I � ' III 1�1�1 �� i�! '� '� 3N �►Y �L9 # �16 �46 . � t i �� , � g� �� ` � � � � !i ��ie i! � � � � ' � ' � �' 3 � ; i ` .� �� ,. .. �I � . � �.lMS � C ' ' � . . � I 3 NII'id 3011lA � Y a z \ $ °� 1 � � �s� =�i. , �- � t �-, � �. � �� ; s.=�a_ � �: � - � �� ;�� _ � ��%) 3 } 3 _ -�_ _ _ �_ — - � a^ ON 4V021 AlNf10�) ,� . 10.11 ' . 6 '� � �' � �� k� � � �� a`� "� � � ` �`�� F�� p � O � ��x�3�� t ,��ff �� a� � �� ` �� k �6� �� .. g �� .� �a, � ��;� �k ��Y�� 9 O ��F��O��O�F��I Z • • � i � � � � 1 • ' I I tiI1 � y I � i i _ � i � ; � I � � I � i � I W • � { I Z ( � i � I � R � `7' i � ao�� a��►rws �� k � 6 � �� E �g�� f ��ad3�i � � , !1; i��;��' I� I;I ��1`�i; °��i}l`li ; , � II I � i i �� 1 (i �i I �; ' �� i 1 i .� l � �) - r-. 1 E.�G_ �� i i�;� �;� �;-1, � ��i; il J� �� :`�,: � II } � �I �! 'I ({ .� �i �l i i� i� �` 1i �� _�i � -,�` , �� !I �� i u � i' �,: E i � J �� U�. �I :i !� ��! �� 1� � ! j JI � l.a �� , � � � J �i-�' � �' ' �� it ;i i� 'I j �� ,i I� :, ,� , i i� � , � — � �i � �,~� ir�l i�'j�' Ir i�-+� -!t -+��i—{�--ij i�--i�--+kr !_._:� � '•' .. L � il u U Ic ` f � ! � S j� ii jJ , �� II � i i� u' �� t� �I f� � i' f�� L:,�1,_u �; h ;;; . :`-► 3 f�.:�= 1 I I I � � �J � � � '�; � ;�, �� I . .:5::.� � � � �� : � I i i ;�� i� I `,'� , I •:�\�� _ �I o ; . �� -- —�-----— ---�----r�,vw------ (G01 �ON aV0'� AlNf10�) c� � - .-. . -- ---- � 10.12 �- a eoso v ; z�� o NW `J13�41�1� ?�� :_� 0 � _ ��•�� t� 6 �_ � 3�IOISNOIld1S Jlda1�4H ��K� €��j .r V�.. T !(� !�§ �„ °p� a .. + ^�bd�3 iiC� VI i'SL� C C C .� � C � ¢ ,'� 0 a� v �a�s � Nw ��14�� <� � 's � -=M � - ��•�� •�� 1 ��:.� = 3�IOISNOI1b1S �'daI�OH �$�� _ � ==a. w e W��° � � �� 3 ��a �� 3� ��p � �� §�� tl , ��7 � �' z;� �a�a �� 0 0 � � s$� �� ;�p � � �� a�� a 1 GC y � Q �� i � �; 10.14 � � � I . � .... ��-� : <9a�a 4 g a � J �� NW �/�1Q�a7 $��c �� « � q'� �v�� = 3�IOlSN011b1S JldaI�OH �� r } vo„ < g �aa6� �� v°� :id: � .� � � I 7 I 3 St � IC O I �� I O � I � I � I � I � �I g I� I � --- � d I � I � � � � I I I � I � I O� � � �I � I� I Iy I I`��- I � i g I 1 IJ u Y� C S � � � ` � ti � I� �� I� � � � U � PL � 10.15 i s ! 6 � � �� .�,�.,�-� , City of Fridley ----� .: PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNtNG COMMISSION : Notice is hereby given that there wili bg a public hearing of the Fridley:Pianning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center; G431 tlniversiry Avenue N.E. on Wednes- day, February 1g, 1 g98 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: ; Considerafion of a Special Use-Permit, j SP �98-01, by Hol'rday Stationstores; Inc., to I and a motor�vehiclelwash'estabiishmentto � be located in the northwest corner of the ' Noliday Plus site, legally described as, Lot 1; � Block 1, HoGday North 1st Addition, gene►ally , �ocated at 250 - 57th Avenue N.E. i Any and aH persons desiring to be heard i shall be given an opportunity at the apove ' stated time and place. Any questions.relat-; ed to this item may pe �eferred Scott Hickok, ' Planning Coordinator aE 572-3599. ane d Whc ne d an�inteepreter o' o;heF pe � sons witp disabilities who require auxi�iary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572- 3500 no later than February 1 t, tggg, DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR ; PLANNING COMMI.SSION (February 5, 12, 1998) Fridley; eory�mbia' Heights Focus News - _._ _... ; _ . � 10.16 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 250 - 57�' Avenue N.E. CASE NUMBER: Special Use Permit, SP #98-01 APPLICANT: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. PURPOSE: To allow a motor vehicle fuel, "station store", and a motor vehicle wash establishment to b� located in the northwest comer of the Holiday Plus site. LOCATION OF 250 - 57�' Avenue N.E. PROPERTY AND LEGAL Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 1 St Addition DESCR/PT/ON: DATE AND T/ME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Nickok, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODAT/ONS: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than February 11, 1998. ANY QUEST/ONS: Contact Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599. Publish: February 5, 1998 February 12, 1998 10.17 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � � SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR: _ Residential Second Accessory Others PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: 24? 57th Avenue N.E. PropeRy Identification Number. Legal Description: Lot 1 Block 1 Tract/Addition Holidav Nozth lst Add� ri o * . _ __. . . - -� -- -- - Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: Reason for Special Use: Mo�or fuel sales and car wash. Nave you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Y2S X i�0 !f Yes, Wt'i1C�'i City� _Fridley and others If Yes, what type of business? Motor fuel/convenience store/car wash. Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �_ N�V�V �V�V A��r^I�Y�V V�VwV�rAr,V/V y�y^IArw�y�V�V �I�V�W V 1►I�y�VN.V . /V�V VNN�V��V�M/^/AI�VA/AI FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: Lyndale Tern��inal Company ADDRESS: 4s6� w. 80th Street Bloomin ton MN 55437 DAYTIME PHONE: s3o-8�2� SIGNATURE/DAT • �i .s� �D�ll :s, . PETITI4NER INFORMATION _ `� - -_- - �%II�AE: Holidav Stationstores, Inc. Attn• David D Hoeschen � y ADDRESS. � DAYTIME PHONE: s3o-8�2� S�NAT DAT� �G __ �� - - - p - ----- Section of City Code: FEES Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accessory $400.00 X Others � Application Number: ,0 Receipt #: . 367 Received By: Scheduled Planning Commission Date: !°e h..a...� ! l 4 9�' Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: 10.18 - _. .J VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page1 CITY: �F FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY : DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: David Hoeschen has requested 3 variances to ailow a new Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57�' Avenue NE. The variances requested include a request for a 31' (49' v. 80') building setback variance adjacent to the Main Street right-of- way, a 14' (66' v. 80') building setback variance from 57�' Avenue NE right-of-way, and a variance to , allow the entire Holiday site (including main store) parking setback to be 9' rather than the 20' required by Code. RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION: The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances requested as VAR #98-03 with the following 10 stipulations: 1. The enclosure for the compressors, on the east elevation of the building, shall include 3(1'- 6" x 1'-6" height necessary to match the height of the screening fence) brick pilasters with a 4" pre-cast concrete cap to match the new fence details that will be placed along 57'" Avenue. Also, the screening slats shall be selected in a color that will match the new fence proposed along 57'" Avenue NE. 2. Pending approval of PS #98-01, and approval of SP #98-01 3. Landscape plan shall be modified to accommodate the planned streetscape improvements along 57�' Avenue NE. A new landscape plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. The canopy signage lights (facing north) shall be turned off by 10:OOp.m.until a new commercial building is constructed on the northwest comer of 57'" and Main Street. 5. All parking islands south of the new structure shall be configured in a manner that will allow a Fall Golden Ash in each (except the island with the tank vents). All vacuum and other additions to the island shall be situated in a manner that will accommodate a tree. 6. The overhead door facing 57"' Avenue shall be replaced by a pair of side hinged doors. 7. The 25' drive aisle north of the proposed store shall be shifted south 10' to accommodate the new 57�' Avenue streetscape and plantings. 8. Create mock windows of a dimension to match those on the plan submitted on February 18, 1998 and dated February 18w by staff. 9. The 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean-up/landscape plan for the principal Holiday site shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Stationstore building. 10. Recognition of a(City required) variance to allow a 9' parking setback along 57�' AV2nue. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL Concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation. 11.01 VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Addition Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS 3 variances to allow for the construction of a Holiday Station Store. 242 57`� Avenue NE Future Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 2"� Addition Proposed 1.2643 Acres Relatively flat with incline areas near Main Street and 57`r' Avenue Urban lawn and landscape C-3, General Shopping, to be platted as Holiday North 2nd New sewer and water services are to be located in 57th Avenue NE. - 57"' Avenue NE New sidewalk proposed along 57th Avenue NE Engineered calculations will need to be submitted indicating that there will be no net gain in the storm water run-off from this site. If a net gain is revealed, storm ponding will be required. It is likely that there may not be a gain because that area where this store is proposed is currently asphalt. The Zoning and Comprehensive Plans are consistent in this location. 11.02 VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page3 Public Hearing Comments: To be taken ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: C-3, Generai Shopping SOUTH: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping EAST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping NORTH: Zoning: C-2, General Business Site Planning Issues: Land Use: Home Depot Land Use: Holiday Plus Land Use: Land Use: Parking for Holiday Plus and the Cattle Company . Restaurant Commercial REQU EST: David Hoeschen has requested 3 variances to allow a new Holiday Stationstore to be constructed at 242 57th Avenue NE. The variances requested include a request for a 31' (49' v. 80') building setback variance adjacent to the Main Street right-of way and a 14' (66' v. 80') building setback variance from 57th Avenue NE, and a parking setback of 9' rather than the 20' required by Code. Mr. Hoeschen has been involved in some of the discussions regarding the 57"' Avenue Improvements. At the time of his submittal, Mr. Hoeschen was not aware of how much additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate the new streetscape north of this proposal. As it turns out, an additional 18.4' of right-of-way will be required. This will move the property line 18.4' closer to the proposed building. Therefore, the variance required along 57`h Avenue is 24.4'. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: On January 31, 1966 a building permit was issued for the 162,000 s.f. Holiday retail building at 250 57�h Avenue NE. Erickson Petroleum Corporation owned all the property abutting 57�' Avenue NE between University Avenue and Main Street. Over time, the Hardee's site, Stuart Anderson's Cattle Company, Good Year Tire, and other sites were sold to other individuals or entities. Erickson's Petroleum had a motor fuel/convenience store operation further north on University Avenue (current pawn shop location). Motor fuel/convenience was not successful without direct access to and 11.03 VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page4 from University and the operation closed. Holiday has been very interested in a new motor fuel operation in this area since the closing of their University store. On June 20, 1994, the City Council approved a request for a variance by Holiday. This variance was to allow construction of a loading dock facing the public right-of-way. The City Council approved the variance with 6 stipulations. Holiday built the toading dock and has complied with 5 of the 6 stipulations. The 6th stipulation was to assure that Holiday would submit a plan to clean-up and landscape the site in a more appealing manner. The City has urged Holiday to complete that plan and continues to hold a $20,000.00 bond to assure the improvements are made. Mr. Hoeschen has worked to lease out the south parcel (behind Holiday). To date, Mr. Hoeschen's efforts have not resulted in a tenant. Mr. Hoeschen does realize that a plan is necessary to clean-up and landscape the site and he has kept the communication open with staff since the approval of the variance in 1994. As a stipulation of the current variances, staff would suggest that the clean-upllandscape plan and plant material installation happen simultaneous to the current improvements being proposed. ANALYSIS Section 205.15.03.C.(1), requires that permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than 80 feet. Section 205.15.03.C.(3), requires that 2 side yards are required, each with a width of not less than 15 feet except: (a) .... (b) Where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot, the side yard requirement increases to 80' . (c) .... Public purpose served by this requirement is to assure visibility at street intersections by al/owing adequate setback of structures. This Code Section a/so assures that the site lines and aesthetic environment of a business district are not hampered by structures that have been placed too c/ose to the street. Code Section 205.14.05.D.5.(a), requires that all parking and hard surFace areas shall be no closer than finrenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way. Public purpose served by this requirement is to assure adequate landscape area to buffer parking areas from view of the public right-of-way. The City of Fridley has plans to improve 57`r' Avenue this summer. As a result of the improvements, the City will be required to utilize additional land area in front of most all 11.04 VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page5 business on 57th Avenue. No additional right-of-way will be required from the Steve Linn property, north of this proposal. The Linn property did however, receive a parking setback variance to allow the parking to be installed 3' from the public right-of-way. Front yard setbacks along 57�h will now range from 35' at Burger King to 75' at the Cattle Company. Directly across 57t" Avenue from the proposed Stationstore will be a new building by Steve Linn, Linn Properties. Mr. Linn's building will have a very similar setback to that which would result if the Holiday Stationstore were to be developed as proposed. The varying setbacks along 57th will cause a diminished setback at the Stationstore to appear more appropriate than if all setbacks along the corridor were the standard 80' required in the C-3, General Shopping District. Mr. Hoeschen has indicated that the City's plans to improve 57th caused the Holiday design people to re-evaluate how they would develop their station store site. Factors such as semi-truck circulation, Holiday customer circulation, and current and future structure visibility were all taken into account. The end result of the design analysis was that the Stationstore should be built as close to the corner of 57�' and Main Street as possible. Staff has noted that though the brick banding on the building is very attractive, the west wall facing Main Street will need to be enhanced. The combination of a reduced setback toward Main Street, no doors or windows, and an enclosure with condenser equipment inside may produce a back yard image on a busy street corner. One solution staff will require is the addition of 3(1'-6" X 1'-6" x H) brick pilasters with 4" pre-cast concrete caps to match those proposed as part of the fence details along 57tn Avenue. The pilasters will replace 3 of the standard fence posts that are proposed to enclose the condenser equipment. Along with the pilasters, staff will stipulate screening slats to match the fence color along 57th Avenue. Three mock windows along the rear face have also been suggested. Parking has been designed in a manner that allows a shared arrangement between the principal Holiday Store and the Holiday Stationstore. Staff has observed that currently, customers do not park out in or near the north west corner of the Holiday parking lot. Therefore, the impacts to the lot will not be detrimental to the customers of the principal store. Thirty spaces are required for the 4466 s.f. Stationstore. With the pump stall 31 spaces have been provided. In order to accommodate the new streetscape plantings and fence along 57`h Avenue, the integral concrete walk shown adjacent to the north face of the Stationstore building and the 25' drive aisle to the car wash will be required to be modified, shifted south to allow an additional 10' adjacent to the streetscape foc plantings. A plat and special use permit will be required as well as the variances being requested. 11.05 VAR #98-03, 242 57th Avenue NE Page6 RECENT APPROVAL OF SIMILAR VARIANCE REQUESTS The City of Fridley has approved similar variance requests in the past. Specific examples will be discussed at the Appeals meeting on February 25, 1998. RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION: 1. The enclosure for the compressors, on the east elevation of the building, shall include 3(1'- 6" x 1'-6" height necessary to match the height of the screening fence) brick pilasters with a 4" pre-cast concrete cap to match the new fence details that will be placed along 57`h Avenue. Also, the screening slats shall be selected in a color that will match the new fence proposed along 57�h Avenue NE. 2. Pending approval of PS #98-01, and approval of SP #98-01 � 3. Landscape plan shall be modified to accommodate the planned streetscape improvements along 57t'' Avenue NE. A new landscape plan shall be submittal for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. The canopy signage lights (facing north) shall be turned off by 10:OOp.m.until a new commercial building is constructed on the northwest corner of 57th and Main Street. 5. All parking islands south of the new structure shall be configured in a manner #hat will allow a Fall Golden Ash in each (except the island with the tank vents). All vacuum and other additions to the island shall be situated in a manner that will accommodate a tree. s. The overhead door facing 57th Avenue shall be replaced by a pair of side hinged doors. 7. The 25' drive aisle north of the proposed store shall be shifted south 10' to accommodate the new 57th Avenue streetscape and plantings. 8. Mock windows of a dimension to match those on the plan submitted on February 18, 1998 and dated February 18`h by staff. 9. The 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean-up/landscape plan for the principal Holiday site shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Stationstore building. 10.Recognition of a(City required) variance to allow a 9' parking setback along 57�' Avenue. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL Concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation. 11.06 �� e �� ! _ _ � !KAlMi �- 6 57 PL rE 9a.lE +�;I � IV i �, � � � 0 R 1 - Q�e Family Urits R 2- Two Family Units � R 3- General Multiple Urits R-4 - Ivbbile Fbme Parks � PUD - Planned Unit DeHeloprt�ent � S-1 - F�1e Par1c Nei9hbaiiood S-2 - R�e�laprt�t astrid ��;' G1 - Local Business G2 - Ger�eral Business � G3 - Ger�a� Si�o�in9 � GR1- Gene►ai Offioe �_-- : NF1 - Li�rt Industrial � tuF2 - Fleavv �naustrial � NF3 - Outdoor Ir�ensive Fieavy Ind. � (� - Railroads � p - Public Facilities 0 wA�m ;� RIGI-ft-0E-WAY � a � � G � � S � � -� - �� -� g a'`Y� �� Y� 9,�`: V" .�`� �.� �.. - ; � �.. . ; �:3''� ■ . � ..,��' ��:� �;�� , �� -� -� - . - N Variance Request VAR 98-03 oA A request by Holiday Stationstores for variances to construct a 3,690 s.f. station store, gas pumps, car wash, & recx�nfiguration of parking - area - 11.07 _ � , ��R �: b' �i i . � 51 A�E IE 54 AbE N m � � �I �I �I� �I� �� ad � �� i � �i W! ��s i� �i� ;m�� o�✓ 11.08 �� 3 0 °z 3 W �Z � � � � �I �; W �,$ ��;� �i� i 3 �; z! �� . �� ;� `.:L ; pz' F; a � w.$ w,+ �'� �. OQ '`� ; � , , �� ., W:�, ,�;� � � �� O� # T � $ � � m � � � � � ! Q _ � m � � I �� t ,� � Q _� C r� (A ; �: �� v�� t� . i1: v � � _ I � �s�� < g � � i � � > T ��< a � � � � a o�c " m W � C� _� �� ` �� _� � _� Ii��ll� \��,\`,�� zo� oN adob .11N!)O�� 11.09 �:� � �� v a E 0 -t� � � _ MEMORANDUM DEVEL�PMENT DIRECTOR DATE: February 26, 1998 „ ��Y TO: William W. Bums, City Manager��'� , FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator � SUBJECT: Comprehensive Sign Plan For Holiday Companies. Holiday Companies, as you know, is in the midst of reworking their interior spaces to make way for their newly acquired sporting goods store which is called, "Gander Mountain." As they move forward with interior alterations they also have approached the City and received permits for a mountain motif that will be constructed on the north, east, and south elevations of the existing Holiday Structu re. The signage changes associated with Gander Mountain trigger the need for Holiday to apply for a comprehensive sign plan. As you know, the Code states that all owners of shopping centers and multiple use buildings of three (3) or more businesses or industries must submit a comprehensive sign plan which must be reviewed by staff and approved by the City CounciL Staff has reviewed and recommends approval of all but one of the components of the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan submitted by Holiday's Sign Consultant, Signia Design. The one component staff does not recommend for approval is the second pylon sign (to be located adjacent to Highway 694). David Hoeschen, Holiday, has indicated that this pylon sign may be installed in the future, but there are no immediate plans for this installation. Code Section 214.11.02 A allows one pylon sign per street frontage. The cumulative area for these signs may not exceed 80 s.f. As proposed, the second pylon sign along 694 would be 80 s.f. The existing McDonald's sign on 57�' Avenue is approximately 80.s.f. If both signs are allowed, a variance for the additional sign would be required. 12.01 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of all aspects of the Comprehensive Sign Plan for this complex, except for the pylon sign. If and when a variance is granted, that additional piece of pylon sign criteria could be added to the plan. 12.02 � H. The sign rtructure shall bc a21 �etal and be either painced or tzeaced to pzevenc detezioraLion. Lck of pzoper nnln�enance shell be cause for revoc�=ion of the sign pernit. I. The nfniaum distance to a railroad czossfng is 350 feet vher. theze are lights and a gsce, and 500 feet from a railroad - crossing v:thout lights and/or � gate. J. Any 2lghting will be shie2ded to not iapair the vision of any aotor vehicle opezato: or to create a nuisance on adjoining propezcy. , i� �. . � 214.13. TYPES. SIZES. eFD SET'EACKS FOR P AND PUD DIS2'RIGTS Sign requirements in Public and Plartned Unit Development districts vill be controlled by the City Counci2 vhen any development is planned. 2I4.14. SHOPPING CF1iIF�tS AND MTLTIPLE DSE EIIII�Y27GS 1. Vithin 180 days of the adoption of this Chapter. alI ovriers of shopping centers and multiple use buildings of three (3) or more businesses or industries, if they have not already done so, mus: sub�it a comprehensive sigr p2an to the Cfty Council for approval. 2. All fu�ure signs erected within the shopping crnter or nultiple use building shal2 confo:-m to the conditions of che sign plan and ma•: be subject to conditions other than those in the district rebu?a:ior.s in order to promote uniform sign appearance. 3. Existing signs vithin the shoppfng center or �ultiple use b��ilding vhich do not meet the zequirements of this Chapter and/or sign p2an, shall be defined as a Iegal nonconforming sign, and shall he subjec: to the restrictions set fo:th in 214.17.2.(B}. (�2-`- 8'.%i 214.25.OI. P M'D PCTD DISTRICTS SNOPPINC CEIr?ERS A.'�'D MJLTI PLE USE BL'II�I*tC5 2i4.I5. SIGIv Pt�t.�1IT RDQIIIRE'i��?S SIC:� PE�.'!iT I. Sig:� Permi�. R.EQt:RF.'i:.'•:S A. Before a sign may be displayed in the City. the slgn erector shall file an applicatfon vfth the City foz permission to disp?ay such sign. - . B.. ,, A permit is.. resiuirad fo� all axistfng. new; relocated. ` mcdiiied or.redesigned-signs except those specificelly exempt urder Section 214.15.1E. C. The issuance of a perm:t aay also be aubject to additional conditions in order to promote a more reasonat,le conbination of signs and to promote confo�mity vith the chazacter and uses of adjoining p:operty. T'he conditions vfll be subject to the discretion of the City. Objections to the conditions can be appealed to the City Council by the applicant. D. �Signs erected by a nonprofit organization are not exeapt from obtaining a sign pernit. but the City aay waive the fee requirement. E. No permit is required to display the fol2oving signs. This shall not be construed as relieving the erectoz of a sign. o� � the ovner of the property on vhich a aign is located from conforming with the other provisions of thfs Chapter: 21/88 12.03 0 2I4-13 � m N � O � � p(�� y 2 `•�j � �.y� O � �� tn p 2 o � _ w •@ � CQ --'i � � � Q � C � �t�y a .,7 � v � ` � � C 'G � -,�� ° F �� z H �� } � Q �.. ��.l ��i� N O a�i U N avi � .a'. t 2.� �•L RS � •V � p y=�p�a = a C7u. a � U fi3 � 7 � � � C1� p)_ � � Q � �f/i � y C > � � C � C C � � > ¢ p C C C�iS C W �� 6� W� W O O� � p� �� fC C/) rn rnt.�.ccnWC��v��'�i��?�tn�a � �n in r cn � -o � � � -o > > -o � v, v a� Q� �> � O� O� f0 � O N O d N�C � cSf � W N w��Z�ZaW o�o�W oW �wo�ua y Vl w id f0 y f0 a fQ Q N Q. RS C d(q p..N n.'` O x in �X �'X C�' C�� O� O O� O�� ctf p`� ow ccw m�u can. ma caa �o �.a c�a c�an.-- z„w "Q- "a ..o- ..a �� n- .�a .�n. r N M et � f0 t� 00 � � L L L L L L L t L t � � � � � � � � � � V♦ W Z a � O U Q 0 J O _ 12.04 0 0 0 0 � � � o � O1 rn � m .�i � �a 0 �i �i W Q � } QQ W � $ Z � w �W¢Qi X��W°C. �, o � i 0 W H Q 2 � 7 � J w> J J .aQ �aZ �HW � W ~ Z iWtz ;>�z i�OQ 2 O � > J W x ¢ 0 z a � a a 0 . m tii ¢ � _ __ 12.05 0 w F- ¢ 2 � � J O '� W > J J aQ aZ . Q ��W �Wz � W ~ �y Z � Y � Z ��oQ j W : � u Z U .o C7 � N � " �3 � m Z � w ~ N � a X a v�i W � � � s z^ �� Ol vi lV � N � > h m 0 �< � I � m v �c LL H _ N CI C O �� E � 03 U d m m 4? 0 0 xx � U I °� Y x �� W � �.�� a■ ��4 � ; �� aa ?� ��^ ; � ��i�� o�� \! � 0 � � I � O i0 ' W iZ � •O �� :¢ �w ��¢ :�3 's : � w J Q U N 12.06 ; � W C7 a z c? � cs z � � !C W �, � � 0 Z N Q L a �n m m ri N V N � N N IO ' 6� O 2 � T � C LL N Gi �C O �N m o � c> a rob �v S2 c d U � � � � �� a"'O C -� �� 1 �k � Q� o ,� .� =c� �z;o v� �'o��J h 2 W T a J (3jJ �': � Q O Q Z � J J J Q H Z w Q. Z � m Za U N W � Ij 'o i� Iz i7Q i�3 i�0 �aw �¢2 �� 2� O Q > W J � W N � � ui s N 12.07 F X y � W Q J I Z W 0 W UV ' W Q Q � W ¢ I W O N �LL O W H a z � J Q J W � ,j J 1 J 6 iQZ � N W i¢r wZ = '�w a I J�-=� W xz ;i3z,°y '>�au�'i z O < > w J W i �' F- 2 � � w Q U a rn W � Q Z (3 � � Z N X W n n � D L � ,_ � � L tq ; O � � O z � T � c � u� " ro N aO � E a ti a � ro 4� �S m U c � r � N .� 00 � �� Y _ �^ �� Q� '!:l � a' � 'g : � :c1 iFZ;? 6�r i/� =1`O�� . W Q � J U OZ Z W � z:�.,.UU �, w a LL U } 2 Q FW- 2 � �o Z W W � Uq N � � � w Q J N U ��$_ »c�a iz3� ¢ oFZo � wz¢? �oc�Qz w U y Q W Q (� jm aC7 Q ¢ J � W � �.¢r Z m W Q O a � O�I-W�- V ¢ W O = J 7 Z F 3 Q W �2Z�¢ NV2Q6 N � Q H WF- ¢ N � 0 p u~i W ¢Ola-w JQ1-� Vlf/1 � i > L J L � L = N z m a ' ui J i !A 12.08 J a � Z � W � wrn�� V W . Z=m� a j�o� J � y X J J Q = W Q 2 � _ � � J O �-3vi� F� J Q u j �2wwni LL W 2 � NYa-iW e2zOZ .0 Q C� Z .Q aummaa Z O � a > J W S Q Z ¢ Q a 0 FW- 2 � 7 � J W > LL < Z ¢ W y W W j�2 OF �- W N jSZyN¢j m ! 'S 2 � �>�a� 0 A � ui Q U � W � Q Z � N � W � O a � � a r � � 0 z� �� i� II ; O � 9 Q � Z � i. m 4 ll N V S LL T f0 9 O �S c .a � c U � �v � 4 c o m 2 C� c d U I � „F,`�. �=� ao ��; . — � r,� n _ -, �� » ��' _ :� �� o�� w ¢ r a w LL J G H U 2 2 a O G N � N ui U 2 Q N � � W ka w< J y )a ao y O W oW=2 f7 • w�= X 0 H � W O � N � Z W ? F � O N W � F O W LL � U W>OLL Q�wC7 7ZQZ NW20 ml-yQ N?� a0 a W � W y8 U Z> ZvQ =SZj3V UO¢�00 wul�»C7 f Q W J Q 2 W ¢ a � � t7 �� W 6 Y � W 7 J U W U V W d(7LL2ma(7 >?V U O J��O J V1w 2�¢V¢O? wQaZapa 2~1W-��-U¢ F.,w SQ 2 JJ w�-3i3'Zw wzF,wr-Da u�Zwza ¢�U(7 V Z� a N J � J a 6 ¢ W � � � Z Z Q � Q �J�a¢ �21l1 12.09 4 4 Q � > � w J W W N Q 6 U W Vl 0 W � � a � � a �, � � a z ,� .� g �t a rn � M N V m � � N O m � Q 2 � � s tL O LL � �o N G�$ c LLC O O Ui � � 0 o m S (7 � U � � C � � �1 _ :� � —1 Oa H M O G N alr�- U W w¢ H� 2 F- 2 w Q ti in � y ¢ w� 4 J W O �oa°c w�3p wzprW-Z Q?OV0 7�FOF N�O¢a X Q � Z 6 Q20�Z ¢W�jyU' ar�x¢ a?�aWO Q W�.. W F J �r Z T � V Q = _ � F N 2 2EKp7 Z Z 2 V �"' f. NF-LL wN°p3c� LL x Q V J W W LL J Q j �aVz~aW N O O 6 F a oWaw=w e¢.e�3m �o N ��a �O� QowW �a �aa Z o O � 7 q W � 2 � 12.10 m ' W N 2 U j Z(7 ¢ 2N�?iC7 7 02�Op F-�-Z 1- Q W J Q � W�'' Q Q� Q Z w w� y 0 W � U W U V Q (�uQ..ZmQU' oTp}wW �¢V¢p? Oa�<J°' �-��¢ W = � = J � z3w3oQ �U(�'JUZ� fA JQ jQ a � W f- w¢a¢ca �F-aF-�cn O o a '" J y W � J W � �"' J O U � � � W � a O �. a � � N � O Z � O = n`. w � � N � N � > 0 � � ¢ � Z � T m � N li 41 N A a C Ui b � O N 2 (,7 N U I �� `�� d _ ��,�� C UN3 � S`n � 7:1��e� � :n �?� vs =� a:3. E o Q C o z o 0 w � w Q z�� zzu' ?a� Zz �m a �a 7� � w � � � vZmy V¢ J J� W J~ OZ Fa- W�zdW WxWO >am0 }O NQ�pO n ~ Y ~ � � ~ Q W U � � LL ~ J N } � W U ? � Z�QJV�i ?00�Ov�i ZWQ� zw~� N��O � � x��, �Zoo sZ��, S w� �o�V� �~a[O� wm��i wm'+�a OWr�pn J� Jm N "=��ONN ?UOU � ZU? N dNO W �+ . � � � ? �1 -o � , � � o .° `' � -s ; _ -� � � . -,c+� ��;a � �� 1 � I�fV 1 �^,� C! l'f O iA ' N W 3 � yU3 Z w a� '"as ! � cwiui �w f �i= S°d I �. ['' ¢ o o a � O � ;? �W I �: F- N a (7 = � ' ��:::, Y �. W � ¢ y � Y s Q � � W � '} . I�� j0¢w�p0 �;' fOH Fw- y' Q H N � � �r�� o Z U O O V F °?aw aI 1' (Zj�UZQU. I � : F 'J J � �i ` V .. � OJ¢fZZ .:.:'� O Z Q 2 J Z O � W~�F.� � F- 2 < . . tO -1 i a?3�z.a � i u � � Q > L L 3 3 _ � o � W w a J O N a � � � z � ? 0 a " N g � a W V a W tn � n 2 n .� � a a`i � �� ; � N H m � � o � � o I � � ! � lL ' C 'ro t � � u � � C Q, N U� ro m 43 2�S c .� U I� �$ e� ea � �� ,� o —,o� � ,� �� '� a �- � z vs =�'oR i � i i i � : i , I r � a w Q LL Zo x �� » N .�_.1 W J Q J W x o ZZ � Wo Z at7Wa O?mF a��W U �3LLam wocZ.7O �aNa 2 N�O2 N W m 6 J � 0 ol �' > w W � a w J Q a 0 m w a � � � d J O Z " a I � u I � W -0 � I Z W yR= I o � �> zc�< I � J=Z�3� I � j°�='z° � Q Q W J� Z I ZW¢Q¢O I I W� W¢ Y¢ W � � ?''a�a�¢ I � � O ZLL?m Q C� I I ZO��}WW 0 i: m � ¢ v � O ? I � Oma�a''a � I ww=�=W¢ wr3 3�� I 'LZi-w��¢ I Q�zwza � � a�cWi�c`�izo I I N�v/WtA�'O � � w � Z � ��a?a�a O rn �¢ Qa H i y L_ , _1 �� j��l � o I J � I F O W � O uj • Z J _ � � � Q � y � I � I � � � I Z � 0 � �� O� z3 � Fw I � 3Q � o, w�¢ � � I �W¢a 0 3 I � NZUo I QO t°v7LLFW- o I y�UZ n J - � � � I O J 2 � ' � ' yaQtA � a¢Ww o�=G � i a?3� � � � � 0 � � �o; � I Q � I J , � a � 12.12 � � � _ o W z � �� N � M Z � o � a rn rn fV � � N N � O4¢ 6 � a o z � d � � LL � a 0 �_ �� U o � 4d S A .. C7 d U � o i W hg 0 �� a " � � � VE V a —��'�' C —,OC m �, �� Z B� � �0� i � . .__._ 12.13 � W Ij m ly : W I� 0 » � w a U N C W N 0 a O � a �, � � 0 z� �� a vi � m vi fV V m 7 N N � O � � a o z � � � v •c LL ui v g LL > N a �o �i = 'c e �'A E � 0 0 U� m � �� q � `c .� v I� n. �� aa 'a �� ,� � �� '� �� — '� z Cr4 =1G� 12.14 . Z ¢ � OoQw > w�3u a a ... _ �- QQZ¢w a- w � �z y W ¢ VOIQ> _� O W J h y � ¢ W O } Z pZH<Qp � � � J ��°.�inO�O N = ix y W N LL ?FF=-QO I �1112�N '�0003 �zmx� Q W � Q � Z � � N u � O � ap W � � N � w O J a L fn � a :a i ... � � �t . fq r°ti lV �i a 0 S °7 a o � i r � m p U � tL � � � C �G p g n N 3 E N � 03 U a ; a � � - - x S 2 3 � � y E U ' c � Cp = U� � , � 1�,� C�. —� U i g � �.l �� y =1 � R B CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The purpose of this request fs to review the proposed site plan for the redevelopment of a one-story flex space building, "Lake Pointe Technology Center," at the west end of the Fridley Executive Center Site and to approve an amendment to the Fridley Executive Center Master Plan, which was approved in 1996. MEPC American Properties is proposing to construct a one-story, 106,705 square foot flex space building on a 10-acre parcel at the western edge of the site in the northeast corner of Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. The S-2 Redevelopment District zoning requires approval of "specific project plans" by the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA. The S-2 District provides the City with the authority to identify the permitted and prohibited uses. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Although the proposed project is less intense than originally approved in 1996, the one- !, story flex space building concept has been proposed in response to the developer's experience from marketing the site and is proposed to initiate a project on the site in order to attract multi-story office users and supportive commercial uses. Adequate room remains on the property for at least 250,000 square feet of multi-story office buildings. There is no change to the proposed commercial uses on the eight acre portion of the campus adjacent to Highway 65. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDTION OF 2/18/98 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed site plan and amended Master Plan, subject to several stipulations which are contained in this staff report. I, CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council concur with the recommendation subject to the stipulations contained in the Staff Report. 13.01 Site Plan, Master Pian Approvai Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Propetty: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Site Plan and Master Plan Amendment of the Fridley Executive Center Site. Northwest corner of I-694 and Highway 65. Proposed to be platted. 41.63 acres gross; 32.77 acres net Fairly level with raised areas for building pads. Deciduous and evergreen trees installed by the HRA. S-2 Redevelopment District and R-1 Single Family Residential (along the northern lot line Sewer, water and storm facilities installed. Highway 65 and 7"' Street BikewayJ walkway around the site Stormwater facilities The 1982 plan identified the area as a Redevelopment District on the 1990 Land Use Plan. Public Hearing The City Council on April 8, 1996 adopted a resolution Comments: establishing that a new environmental assessment work- sheet was not required. The findings supporting this decision contained an extensive analysis of the site issues and compared the original 1996 development plan with the current plan. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan reduces the amount of square footage as originally 13.02 Site Plan. Master Plan Approvai Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 3 contemplated in 1998 and, therefore, does not require any additional need for environmental review. Neighborhood meetings were held in 1996 regarding the originally approved Master Ptan. Another neighborhood meeting was conducted in February of 1997 regarding the Highway 65 intersection improvements. The neighborhood has been notified regarding the proposed amendment, in addition to the Special Use Permit and Plat Request. ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: Multiple and single- family zoning and uses �OUTH: Zoning: Single-family and commercial zoning and uses EAST: Zoni�g: Multiple family NORTH: Zoning: Single family zoning and uses Fridley High School � • � � • i • 1985—HRA entered into contract for private redevelopment with Lake Pointe Investment Company (David Weir). • 1986—City rezoned property to S-2 Redevelopment District, based on proposal submitted by developer. • 1987—City installed streets, utilities, landscaping, and irrigation. • 1992—HRA acquired site from Lake Pointe Investment Company. • 1993—HRA initiated marketing plan for property and initiated search for developer. • 1995—City Council and HRA selected MEPC American Properties to enter into contract for exclusive negotiations through August 1. 1997. 13.03 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 4 • 1996—MEPC obtains Master Plan approval; City obtains Environmental Assessment Worksheet approval and Indirect Source Permit approval. • 1997—City Council and HRA review original vision for the site; agree to evaluate one-story flex space concept at west end of the property. • 1998—HRA approves new contract for exclusive negotiations with MEPC and also approves development contract for construction of one-story flex space building at the west end of the site. . .�.� , . � � The purpose of this application is to approve the proposed site plan and to amend the 1996 Master Plan for the Fridley Executive Center Site. The Site is zoned S-2, Redevelopment District. The District requires approval of each individual project by the Planning Commission, HRA, and City Council. The District also gives the authority to the City to determine the permitted and excluded uses in the proposed development. The Development Contract with the HRA also requires Site Plan and Master Plan approvaL ' � � ' i The proposed amendment to the Fridley Executive Center Master Plan consists of constructing a 106,705 square foot building on the west end of the property, thereby reducing the originally anticipated square footage of office development from 580,000 square feet to 356,705 square feet. About 10.89 acres remain in the central portion of the site to accommodate 250,000 square feet of multi-story office space plus a parking ramp. There is no change to the uses or the square footage that was originally anticipated on the eight acre commercial site adjacent to Highway 65 (approximately 90,313 square feet). The amendment is proposed as the result of several factors. MEPC marketed the property for approximately 18 months from 1995 to 1997. Several proposals were made to a variety of office and commercial users. Unfortunately, the site had to compete with the downtown area of the central cities for multi-story office users. Several users decided to pursue downtown Minneapolis or downtown St. Paul sites. Further, there is significant growth in smaller office and high-technology companies who prefer a"Class A" office environment in one-story "flexible" spaces, in order to adjust their employee and production areas. In making a proposal to the Lawson Software Company, however, MEPC developed a"mixed-use" park concept by proposing a one- story research and development flex space building with a multi-story corporate office facility. The Lawson Software Company was very impressed and interested in this concept, however, the St. Paul site was their preferred location. 13.04 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 5 In July, 1997, MEPC proposed this concept to the HRA and the City Council at a joint workshop session to determine if this would be an acceptable concept to pursue. Initiating construction on the site with a one-story flex space building would not only meet the current market demand, but would also attract interest to the site and would still attract multi-story office users. Another factor important to the City is the ability to collect tax increment during the life of the Tax Increment District. The District expires in 2011. It is in the City's interest to initiate development on the site to attract further development and maximize the increment. In addition, the HRA will be selling the 10 acre site at fair market value; there is no "subsidy" proposed with this project. ��•�• � =► Parking Because there is a reduction in square footage of approximately 223,295 square feet, the land-use impacts are reduced. There will be less traffic, which will produce less noise and less air quality impacts than originally anticipated. Approximately 459 parking stalls will need to be created to serve the one-story building (as shown on the site plan). In total, the office park will require 1,559 parking spaces, instead of the originally anticipated 2,579 spaces. There will be about a 10% increase in impervious surFace coverage since the proposed project entails approximately 76% of the site as impervious surface, whereas the previously approved Master Plan on this part of the property had 66% coverage (ramps plus parking). Stormwater A retention pond is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. The pond has been sized and designed to meet the National Urban Runoff Pollution Standards required by the City and the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization. The pond will retain water which will also be an amenity for the development. The water will discharge to the storm sewer system in place in the street. 13.05 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 6 Rooftop Screening The petitioner has agreed to construct a continuous metai screen on the roof of the building to screen the HVAC equipment. The developer has been requested to prepare a visual cross-section of the interchange area as to the appearance of the building from the interstate. The developer has constructed this metal screen on a similar project in Eden Prairie (which recently won a National Association of Industrial Office Parks' Design Award). View from the Residences to the North The finished floor elevation of the one-story building is now proposed at 884 feet, approximately the same elevation as the houses to the North. The elevation of the homes, however, increases in height as one proceeds east. The developer is considering raising the elevation of the site and the building three to five feet, in order to minimize the amount of fill exported from the site. The building height is 21 feet (16 feet inside the building) and when coupled with the landscaping in the buffer area and on the site, will create an attractive view from the residential properties. Building Exterior The exterior of the building is proposed to be a high quality finish of brick and glass. The petitioner is proposing the Sandy Rose brick, which was used at their project in Golden Valley, with an accent brick of a light Buff and or Tan color (see the architect's description of the proposed building in the narrative). Because the proposed building represents the first project in a long-awaited development, the City should evaluate the proposed color scheme to ensure that it can be properly integrated with.future phases of the office development. The Sandy Rose color is very attractive; however, staff has requested the developer propose another color of brick to provide the City with an option. The City should take care in insuring that the first phase of construction easily lends itself to creating an image that multi-story development can occur next to the proposed project. The developer is confident that the Sandy Rose and Tan accent will not detract from multi-story office development, and that the colors can be complimentary to additional development. The developer has not as of yet agreed to provide another option. - ` +. The roof of the building will also be able to be seen by the multi-story office building to the east. It would be a creative and unique feature to have some type of landscaping/park area on the roof of the building. This would not only provide an amenity for the flex space tenants, but would also be an attractive view for the tenants in the multi-story office park 13.06 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 7 Landscaping The proposed landscape plan meets the code requirements. An additional techny arborvitae hedge is proposed in the buffer area north of Bridgewater Drive in a strategic location to screen the opening to loading area at the rear of the building. Approximately 111 trees are proposed in the landscape plan. In addition, about 33 existing trees around the perimeter of the site can be retained if properly protected during construction. The developer has also indicated that an 80" tree spade will be used to transplant as many of the existing 48 trees on the interior of the site as possible' Permitted Uses The S-2 District provides the City with the ability to stipulate the permitted and prohibited uses within the development. Uses which will be permitted in the flex space building are those uses which require at least seventy five percent office space, have very low amounts of truck traffic, are oriented to technology types of uses such as medical device facilities, or other research and development activities. Uses which would be unacceptable are retail or commercial oriented uses or those industrial uses which require significant amounts of truck traffic. Examples of uses from other MEPC projects include CyberOroptic which creates the components and software for Hewlett Packard. Information Software produces software for grocery store companies. Sedgewick James is an insurance company. All of these companies employ highly skilled employees who want to work in a quality, Class A environment. Signage The 1996 master plan approval required submission of a comprehensive sign plan prior to issuance of the first building permit for the site. The planned signage plan includes the following: . 1. 30 square foot monument sign at entrance to the facility, with a brick base, with the text: °501 Lake Pointe Drive." 2. A 4 square foot directional sign on Bridgewater Avenue. 3. 32 square foot metal wall panels with a tan background and burgundy pin stripe. 4. Two 600 square foot project identifier signs located at West Moore Lake Drive and Lake Pointe Drive and in the outlot immediately south of the proposed site. The color scheme for all of the signs will be burgundy� blue-green, and white lettering. 13.07 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 8 Staff recommends that the wall panels be replaced with a signage pattern which incorporates individual letters as opposed to the metal panels or box signs. Several projects have been required to meet this standard, including the Hillwind office building on the east side of Highway 65 and the o�ce buildings in the Center City area. Lighting There will be 13-30 foot tall high pressure sodium parking lot lights around the building. These lights are constructed so that the light is thrown on the area immediately surrounding the light pole. Wall mounted lights are proposed over the rear loading area doors in the courtyard of the building. First of the six lights will be screened by the building itself. The sixth light will not be able to be seen because of the vegetation in the buffer strip and the distance between the buildings and the single family homes. During the 1996 Master Plan review, 12-15 foot tall standards were suggested along Bridgewater Drive. Taller standards were suggested along Lake Pointe Drive. The HRA is currently evaluating the timing of the installation of the steel lights and will be working with the developer regarding the design and appearance of the standards. The costs to purchase and install the street lights is still negotiable. � ��_._� • • ► Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan and the amendment to the 1996 Master Plan based on the plans dated January 16, 1998 and subject to the following stipulation (the previous 1996 stipulations have been reviewed, amended, and repeated as necessary): MASTER PLAN 1. 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 Ill 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 architecfural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, 13.08 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 9 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 3/29/96 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 ten feet from property lines. F. 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' - 15' 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. 10' - 12' 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. 13.09 Site Plan, Master Plan Approval Amendment; Fridley Executive Center Page 10 10. Park 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. ' _� �i a-- -._L1 ' � �1• • ► • 1. 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. 6. The sign plan dated January 16, 1998 shall be amended to replace the wall panel signs with a plan to provide a sign with individual letters. 7. The petitioner shall comply with the Engineering Department requirements as stated in the memo dated January 26, 1998. ' :►► ► �►Ill �\ :_ �ll ►�1 ��l The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended Master Plan and site plan with the stipulations recommended by staff. • _ � •u �� Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendation subject to ten stipulations contained in the Staff Report. 13.10 �� -- - - �� ) �� '�' � � :� ��ii � � �� I � � � _ � � �L�M�� /:; �� :;:� i ii%��i: ��"� �' : ��'::::::� .. .:;.. N ,,. ��„ . �i � i�i��1 ■ �� ■ o �iiil!!�1i i, �„�ii�l1 ■r_ n�� w � � '��/ L ;; l l� �lf �111� /f�''�;�� 1.. �,� � � lf� �� . ��'� % - . �� S � � . . �. ��,�, � �,�� ■��■11�1� 0 . �.�, ti : �;�- xfi ': , . x�t::".:::3;.. �� N n FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 10 Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374-9461 1995 Street Improvement No. ST. 1995 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 4 . . . . . Proj ect . . . . . . . . . . $81, 684.04 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the consent agenda items. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. NEW BUSINESS: � � 19. APPROVE MASTER PLAN FOR LAKE POINTE OFFICE PARK BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the evalua- tion of the Master Plan for Lake Pointe culminates a three-month review process by staff, City commissions, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Neighborhood meetings were also conduc- ted, and it is recommended that the Master Plan be approved with twelve stipulations. Ms. Dacy presented aerial photos of the 38-acre site. She stated that R-1 zoning was retained to �provide a buffer for the neighbor- hood to the north. The S-2 zoning comes into play because what is proposed in the Master Plan should be consistent with what the City desires for the site. The proposed plan is for 582,000 square feet of corporate office space consisting of two five-story buildings, one six-story building, and one eight-story building. Serving the office building will be a three-story office deck. Ms. Dacy stated that on the east portion of the site there will be three commercial buildings housing a restaurant, a four-story hotel, and a bank and office structure. There may be some day care facilities located in the office building to serve employees. � 13.12 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 11 Ms. Dacy stated that the developer will be required to plat the property as it is developed. The office building exteriors will be brick or pre-cast concrete. There would be� standard signage, liqhting, and landscaping. A plaza area in the center of the site is proposed, as well as a major entrance. Easements would be retained for the bikeway/walkway. Ms. Dacy stated that the S-1 zoninq district requires a special use permit if other than a nine-foot wide parkinq stall is contemplated. A lump sum payment is recommended for the park fee, and five additional ponds are proposed. The developer would have to comply with all requirements of the Six Cities and Rice Creek Watershed Districts. Ms. Dacy stated that the Housing and -Redevelopment Authority received the indirect source permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for control of the air quality and noise. One of the stipulations is that MEPC has to accept the transfer of this permit once they take ownership of the property. The next step in the process is for MEPC to carry out the marketing plan for the site. Ms. Dacy stated .that staff is continuing to work on the improvement for the Highway 65 intersection. Mr. Dave Jzllison, representing MEPC, stated that everything is proceeding well. There is a large user for the site needing 125,000 square feet with another 50,000 square feet over the initial four years. Two other companies are also considering this site. Mr. Jellison stated that they are having some difficulty marketing the service side of the property. Both Hampton Inns and Marriott Corp. like the visibility but feel there needs to be more development before they could proceed. This also holds true for the restaurant to proceed. Mr. Jellison stated that they are planning a large broker outing on July 18 centered around the Master Plan. He hopes to get over 100 real estate brokers at the site to familiarize them with the development. Mr. Ed Farr was present that eveninq to answer any questions about the architectural design. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there was any new information on the intersection improvements. Ms. Dacy stated that discussions have been initiated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and they have been brought up to date on MEPC's plan. It is hoped that construction can began within the next one to two years. . MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Master Plan for Lake Pointe Office Park by MEPC American Properties with the following stipulations: (1) appropriate plat applications sha11 be submitted and approved prior to development of the 13.13 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 12 property; (Z) all uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses: office uses typically associated with corporate/Class A office developments; hotel and conference facilities; banks/financial institutions; Class III restaurants as defined in Section 205.03.59 of the zoning code; day care facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be tne 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 sign 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 addressinq 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) h2ight, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified; (d) two free-standing project identifier (D} signs are permitted; th� size and height to be approved by the City Council; (e) all free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines; and (f) the petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation; (5) the petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property; (6) twelve to fifteen foot light standards shall be installed alonq Bridgewater Drive adjacent to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights; (7) if the parking decks or parking areas are within the R-1, Single Family Dwelling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; (8) if nine-foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the S-2, Redevelopment District, must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; (9) appropriate permits from the Rice Creek watershed District, Six Cities watershed Management Organization, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for storm water 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; (10) when appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit from the HRA; (11) detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. Ten to twelve foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at time of building permit issuance; and (12) park fees shall be paid prior to the initiation { of construction of the first development on the site. Easements ` 13.14 i • � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 13 shall be dedicated at the time of plan approval over the existing bikeway/walkway areas. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 20. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT N0. 3, PROJECT NO. 293: Mr. wilczek, Assistant Public nlorks Director, stat�d that four 5ids were received for this project, and the low bidder was Richmar Construction at 51,507,485. The engineer's estimate for tnis project was 51,395,000, so the low bidder is $112,485 over the estimate. However, the project has changed since the original estimates were submitted. The budget for this project was based on ar. April, 1995 report from Meier Stewart and Associates. Mr. Wilczek stated that the difference in the actual bids and the estimate was probably due to several factors, including marqinal soil borings and the cost for the electrical and instrumentation work. Even though the bids are higher than expected, he did not believe the City would receive any better bids. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked about the electrical and�instrumentation work. � Mr. Tom Roshar, Meier Stewart and Associates, stated that their estimates were not accurate on the costs for electrical and instrumentation work. The estimated cost prepared in May was low and should have beer� increase�. Another likely cause for these higher costs is that the City has a SCADA system supplier that did a lot of work in the City, and the system is now expanding. He felt the bids for the electrical and instrumentation work were not as competitive as they should have been. Because of this vendors' existing equipment and past experience in the City, the other vendors may have been unabie to provide competitive prices for the work. In addition, the vendor of the existing equipment may have had less incentive to reduce their prices. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the bids for the construction of water treatment plant No. 3, Project No. 293: Richmar Construction, Inc., for $1,507,485; Sheehy Construction Company, Inc. for 51,558,141; Newmech Companies, Inc. for 51,566,800; and Stahl Construction Company for $1,934,999. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to award the contract for the construction of Fridley Water Treatment Plant No. 3, Project No. 293 to the low bidder, Richmar Construction, Inc. for S1, 507, 485. 13.15 R NaRRa'TIVE FOR LAKE POINTE TECHNOLOGY CENTER at FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBv1ITTAL January 16,1998 History• and Overview In 1996, MEPC American Properties, Inc. and Edward Farr Architects, Inc. submitted a Master Plan proposing a high quality commercial development consisting of low-rise to mid-rise office buildings w-ithin the 20.91 net acre western portion of the property, and low-rise supportive commercial, retaiI, and hospitality uses w-ithin the 10.24 net acre eastern portion of the property. This subdivision application creates: one 10.02 acre lot for our Phase I development, multiple�outlots for remainina parcels, and right-of-way dedications for roads. Overall land azeas reflect adjustments due to MnDOT transfers; our new gross development is 43.65 acres and the net developable area is 36.07 acres. Due to real estate market factors, it has been determined that a single story "office-tech" product makes more sense as a Phase I buildin� to kick off the development. This product type is very popular, because it's fle�ible leasing options attract a variety of tenants: office/research, office/warehouse, light manufacturing, hi-tech industries like medical, computer, and softwaze companies, and pure office users. Our Master Plan has been updated to show the revised configuration of the development. We still envision multi-story office buildings east of Phase I, as well as the supportive retail on the easternmost 8 acres fronting Central Avenue. Lake Pointe Technolo� Center The Phase I project, called Lake Pointe Technology Center, is a single story 106,705 square feet office - tech building with 4�9 surface parking stalls and a storm water retention pond on a 10.02 acre site. The building is being built speculativety, that is, without a specific tenant in place. Therefore, no interior walls or ceilings �vill be built at this time; only a concrete floor slab, exterior wall construction, and open steel bar joist roof deck. All four sides of the building have face brick and glass storefronts to allow tenant entries at any point around the building. There is a central loading court for shippin� and receiving, screened from the perimeter with landscaping and screen walls. Inside, the clear height under the roof framinQ is 16' high, resulting in a 21' high exterior wall. � Site Planning The site has a significant grade change; being some 30' higher om the east side than the low point at the southwest comer where Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive intersect. Vehicular approach to the site is predominantly from Central Avenue on the east, but access is possible from University Avenue on the west as well. Views to the property are quite prominent from westbound I-694 due to the higher interstate elevation coming from the east down to the river valley. The interstate elevation across from the site is approximately the same as the rooftop of the building. Eastbound I-694 views aze significantly shielded by the tall concrete divider wall on the highway. An existing low area at the southwest corner now holds some water, and will be improved to city standards for storm water retention in keeping w-ith the original Master Plan. _ The_ pond has been designed to hold water to ensure 13.16 a beautiful water feature image all year lona instead of "going dry". The building's U-shape achieves a nice "front door image" all around it, avoiding objectionable backside exposures by wrapping itself around the loadin� court. Consistent �vith the Master Plan's concept of limitin; most delivery traffic to Bridgewater Drive, the entry to the loading court is off the north side. Parkin� is distributed evenl}- around the building to offer convenience to all entry locations. The main employee and visitor entry is off Lake Pointe Drive. Due to the relationship to the ne:�t phas�, a proposed multi-story office buildina. w-e are transitioninQ the grade differential betw-een the parcels with a walk-out lo�ver level concept for the adjacent office buildina. The future building will act as a retaining wall for the grade change, so in the interim, we will grade onto that adjacent parcel with a smooth slope. The alternative, creatinQ a severe retaining wall all alon, the Phase I eastern border, would only be a temporary solution, bein��tom do��-n when the office building ��as developed. Exterior Building Materials / Rooftop Screening As presented in the Maser Plan Narrative, we are using a blend of two warm-toned face bricks on the facade to present a rich, warm, textured image. The main brick color is called `Sandy Rose', a tan/orange/buff tone; and the accent brick is a light buff color, used in detail bandings and column accents. As a benchmark for the design quality, you may be familiar with a building we designed for MEPC in Golden Valley where similar detailing and colors were used. The glass used is bronze tone, eneray efficient, 1" thermal pane, "Low-E" glazing with a low-reflectivity rating to minimize the mirror-imaje chazacteristic of reflective glasses. The aluminum framing holding the glass will be "champagne" anodized aluminum finish which has a rich tan/gold sheen, complementin' the warm tones in the brickwork. The loading court wall construction, hidden from public view, will be painted tan "rock-face" decorative concrete masonry units for economy and durability in this area. Painted metal stairs, metal man-doors and sectional metal overhead doors will blend with the paint color of the decorative masonry units. Rooftop HVAC units will be screened with a continuous pre-finished li�ht tan colored, metal panel wall system, appro:c. 6' hiah and set back appros. 20 from the front building edge. The continuous nature of this element will eliminate the unsightly "dog-house" effect of individual rooftop unit screening devices, and help to maintain the simple horizontal proportions of the facade. Soils Soil correction on this parcel was completed in the 1980's when the previous developer's Master Plan showed a series of multi-story office buildings laid out in a 45 degree angle zigzag pattern. Unsuitable soil was removed from under building pad locations, and replaced with suitable fill. Parking areas were only moderately corrected for the lighter parking loads. Our building footprint extends over both soil profiles, the corrected building pad zone as well as the parking zone. Therefore, new borings are being taken to determine the extent of soil correction we will need to support our entire foundation. Significant cut and fill excavations are required anyway due to the grade differential from east to west. Our soils engineer and structural engineer aze both confident in our ability to replace unsuitable soils to a satisfactory level in order to use a conventional spread footing foundation system for this structure. When cut and fill quantities are better defined, we may adjust the grade level of the buildin' to accommodate a better "balanced" earthwork situation to avoid costly import or export of soils. Retaining walls, constructed of modular "Keystone" type decorative concrete masonry units, have been shown where necessary to keep surface slopes to a 3:1 maximum gradient. 13.17 � � Utilities Underground utilities are being connected per the original Master Plan concept. Domestic water service enters the site from the existina water main in Lake Pointe Drive. V�%e are bringing a 6'' water pipe into our property and going around the building with it to provide appropriate fire hydrant locations per cit�- Firz Dzpartment reQulations. Off that 6" line, we have two separate line taps QoinQ to the buildina, one for tire protection sprinkler service. the second for domestic w-ater. Note that no plumbina fi:ctures w•ill be provided at this initial shell staae of construction, until further tenant work is detined. However. w-e w�ill install a fully functional w�et fire protection sprinkler system in the roof joists now. Storm sewer pipes are located throughout our parking lots to collect and direct water to our NURP pond along the w�estern ed�e of the project. The pond has been designed with the proper regulatory desi;n standards, and has an HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) liner shzet which �vill hold the �vater leveI up even in dry periods to maintain the amenity year round. Surface drainage calculations are enclosed. Sanitary Sewer hookup is also off an existing stub at Lake Pointe Drive where a sanitary main resides. It has also been determined that electrical, telephone, and gas services are all available through each public utility company. Site Lighting During our Master Plan review, rivo li�ht sources were discussed and evaluated for use on this project: Metal Halide, N1H, (white light) and High Pressure Sodium, HPS, (orange tint light). It was determined to use HPS lightin; throu�hout the development for all street lighting and pazkina lot liohting. 1�letal Halide will be used for special accent li;hting, and where specific color rendition is needed. Therefore, we are proposing that the street lighting along Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive consist of 16' hi�h poles with Type III - asymmetrical 7� degree cutoff shoebox fixtures w�ith 250 watt HPS lamps (oranQe tint). The height of these poles are shorter than typical street poles, to avoid li?ht spill onto the residential azeas. The locations for these street light poles have already been established; their w-iring and concrete base foundations are already in place along each roadway. I believe that discussions pertaining to the installation and maintenance of these fi:ctures, city vs. developer, are in progress now. Parking lot lightina w-ithin our site is proposed to be 30' hi�h poles with both Type V- square cutoff and Type III - asymmetrical, 7� degree cutoff shoebo:c fiYtures with 400 watt HPS lamps (orange tint). Despite the taller pole height, the cutoff style fixture is designed to shield distracting glaze and eliminate light spill off-site. Accent lighting at each tenant entry door will be MH (white light) down lijhts installed under the soffits alona the perimeter. In the loading court, wall mounted HPS f xtures illuminate the dock areas; these wall-packs are shielded from view by the building itself, so no light spill should be released onto the adjacent residential development. Site Signage Consistent with the Master Plan Signage Concept, we are proposing a ground mounted entry monument sign at the main driveway along Lake Pointe Drive. Design of this sign will set the style for the future entry monument signs at Fridley Executive Center. It will have a brick base below an internally illuminated, two sided, metal cabinet sign, with the text: "�O1 Lake Pointe Drive". The squaze part of the sign cabinet will be colored burgundy, the pie-shaped part colored blue-green, and the lettering will be white translucent plexiglass. 13.18 A post mounted metal directional sign, bur�undy color with white lettering, will provide information at the secondary curb cut entry off Bridgewater Drive, where we will direct truck delivery traffic into the loading court. Building address numerals will be w�all mounted where indicated, finished in a champagne aluminum tone. Individual tenant siQns will be standardized sian panels mounted on the brick w�all above their entry door. The sign panels will be pretinished lisht tan metal �vith a burgund� pin stripe, approx. �'h x 8'l; then the tenant w-ill apply their own unique logo & name upon those panels. �Vhile these panels are typically not illuminated, we would like to reserve the riQht to have internally illuminated cabinet sians instead of non-illuminated ones in case stron� market feedback sug�ests playina up to the I-694 visibility. We sho�ved those tenant sign panels at all possible locations, but of course they would only be installed where tenant entry doors are located in the future. Incidental door siQnaae will be 3" hi�h white helvetica painted letters. Other required signaQe, not sho��n on the plans, includes handicapped accessib(e parking signs meeting State of M�1 requirements, and any fire lane siQns the Fire Chief may require along drive aisles. � Other signage around Fridley Executive Center, off of the Phase I site, is contemplated. First, the main Fridley Executive Center monument signs contemplated in our Master Plan, one along I-694 in the outlot, the other near the main entry by Central Avenue. We would like to construct these two lazge monument signs along with the Phase I project. A separate submittal will be prepared addressing final design, size. colors illumination for approval prior to construction. Second, we believe a temporary directional sign will be required at the eastern intersection of Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive to direct visitors to the Phase I project straight along Lake Pointe Drive and direct truck deliveries to tum riQht on Brid;ewater Drive. This sign will be replaced with more comprehensive directions at that same location when the balance of the development is determined. Landscaping The previous developer's concept (mid 1980's) for the landscape plan organized the site by creating a pleasing boulevard effect along Lake Pointe Drive. Deciduous trees 4" - 6" in size were planted every �0'-60' on center, plus coniferous trees to add green color yeaz round. There �vere groups of trees planted to break up the larje eYpansive areas. These trees were to be relocated at the original time of development. A�0' buffer was created adjacent to the residential azea to provide screening for the residents using evergreens, shade trees and shrub masses. An irrigation system was installed in the areas adjacent to the road between the road and sidewalk and in the 40' buffer strip to the north. - In keeping w�ith that previous concept, similar species will be used to enhance the existing plantinos, this time in groups of deciduous and coniferous trees along with an understory of flowering trees and shrub masses. Shade trees will be used in and around pazking lots providing shade and continuing the boulevard effect into parking areas, groups of conifers will be used for screening and for additional green color through the year; plus groups of understory flo�vering were used to add spring and winter interest. Berming and arborvitae hedges will be used to screen the pazking lot from the roadway as well as a hedge of arborvitae across from our Bridgewater. Drive entry to screen our headlights from the residential area. E.cisting trees that are in good condition, that would be lost during construction operations, will be transplanted on site to fill in areas where they are needed. Care will be taken to protect the existing trees which have now matured to 5" - 7" in size. Note that trees within the 40' buffer strip will not be disturbed. The Phase I site will be regraded and all sodded areas will be irrigated. end of Narrative 13.19 x ,M E P C July 17, 1997 Mr. Bill Burns City Manager Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Bill: c MEPC American Properties 1550 Utica Avenue South Suite 120 Minneapolis Minnesota 55416 Telephone (61� 546-8000 Facsimile (612) 542-9297 The following activities and material development has been enacted by MEPC over the past year and a half in an effort to position and market Fridley Executive Center for commerciai development. - • Master Site Develo�ment Plan Based on the research and secondary market information, we worked with city planners, architects and engineers to establish an updated Master Site Development Plan. � Focus Grou� Research - An exploration of attitudes and perceptions of Fridley and the Fridley business community by the commercial real estate community. • New Image (Fridley Executive Center� Created to help achieve the City of Fridley's goal of upgrading and expanding the image and perception of the community. 13.20 Developer of Minneapolis West Business Center and Normai. ,.,,....,. R' Mr. Bill Burns July 17,1997 Page 2 • New Lo�o —�— A logo developed to provide a contemporary business image to prospective company tenants. • New Si�na�e Initial method of impacting potential prospects with the image and site advantages of Fridley Executive Center. • Site Event for Brokers A personal introduction to Fridley Executive Center by key marketing members of the Twin Cities commercial real estate community. An opportunity to share, first-hand, the advantages of this unique site and to define appropriate users according to the master site development plan. • Undated Marketing Materials Developed a rendering of Phase I along with a totai package of information for use in all marketing activities directed to brokers and prospects. • a'1'nQ Announcing the Fridley/MEPC development agreement to commercial space users and more than 500 key real estate brokers in the Twin Cities area. • Marketing Meetings Conducted marketing meetings with the leading local commercial real estate companies to show the opportunities available at Fridley Executive Center. 13.21 � Mr. Bill Burns July 17, 1997 Page 3 ♦ Commercial Sites The following service businesses were contacted to expand their understanding of the opportunities available at Fridley Executive Center. Hampton Inns - Tom Torgerson Marriott Courtyards - Dan Mahoney American Hospitality Management - Kirby Pa�ne Five Star Realty & Development - James Stuebner Graves Development Corporation - Jim Graves Homewood Suites - Cambridge Real Estate Company • Restaurant Macaroni Grill/Chilli's - Brinker Corporation Old Chicago/The Chop House - Brewery, U.S.A. Olive Garden/General Mills Champs/Shelley's - A.B. Pettit Company Nikalow Deli - Jim Nikalow Outback Steak House - D.J. Sikka • Banks Northeast State Ba.nk - Ben Rasmussen Alliance Bank - Susan Hinrich ♦ Office Tenants The following proposals were presented as a second stage marketing approach to interested prospects which had been developed through marketing efforts: American Express Financial Services (IDS) Dain Bosworth 13.22 � Mr. Bill Burns July 17, 1997 Page 4 � Piper Jaffrey Target U.S. West Direct Augsburg Fortress Publishing Home Builders Association of the Twin Cities Pentair, Inc. Lawson Software Summary: Based on our experience with this development site and many conversations with prospects and real estate professionals, it is apparent that demand for high density executive o�ce space in the northern Twin Cities market area is extremely limited. However, given the explosive growth of technology firms and the recent success of technology buildings throughout the Twin-City area we believe the Fridley Executive Center site is ideally suited for this new wave of business space growth. In meeting the needs of the corporate users of today and in order to get development going on this site, MEPC would propose the development of approximately 100,000 square feet of Hi-Tech space on the westerly portion of the site. The project would be similar in quality and appearance to Golden Hills Business Park in Golden Valley and Golden Triangle Technology Center in Eden Prairie. Both of the projects have been successfully constructed and leased by NIEPC over the last year and a half. These projects are attracting fast growth, quality companies such as: CyberOptics Inforrnation Advantage Sedgewick James Workstations International Sales Force Companies 71,000 sf 37,000 sf 22,000 sf 13,000 sf 22,000 sf 13.23 R t Mr. Bill Burns July 17,1997 Page 5 Many of these companies vacated office buildings to relocate to Hi-Tech facilities. These Hi-Tech facilities offer a class "A" office environment with ease of access, flexibility for growth and the functionality of a one-floor operation. With this revision to the Master Plan, the City of Fridley would still have the flexibility of developing approxirnately 250,000 sf of multi-story office space on the balance of the site. MEPC believes that by beginning �onstruction on the Hi-Tech facilities now, we will generate new found attention to Fridley Executive Center. In our extended discussions with Lawson Software, we found an interest to have both a corporate headquarters site and also a one (1) story Research & Development (R&D) facility at this location. We therefore believe this type of mixed-use park would fit many corporate users and attract excellent, high-quality, skilled professionals to the City of Fridley, but not limit the future development of office space on the balance of the site. MEPC has greatly enjoyed the opportunity to work with a City that is so interested in attracting and accommodating corporate users to this site. It has been a pleasure to work with you and your staff and hopefully we can continue this relationship through the completion of this excellent business park. Sincerely, MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC. � . � David M. ellison Regional Vice President Marketing Division DMJ/clp ,� _- �=-'" �� _ � � � : `�:? �* � . �,�� j �slie Jowett,�RPA Leasing Manager 13.24 205.22 S-2 REDEVELOpI�NT DISTRICT REGIIL�iTIONS � _. PIIRPOSE The purpose of this special zoning district is to: 2os.22.s. - S-2 RE- DEVELOP2�NT DISTRICT REGIILATIONS PIIRPOSE A. Allow for a mixed use development within special redevelopment district s set up under Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statutes for the health,•safety and general welfare of the cicy. B. Allow for the maximum flexibility in the promotion of difficult redevelopment projects, C. Allow for development by e plan which is acceptable to� and in the best interest of� the City and the overall district and development plan. ' -- � � 2. IISES PERMITTED Permitted uses in S-2 Districts are: Those uses which are acceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as approved by the City. Upon approval of the specific development plans, the City shall determine the specific uses that are permitted within the development. � IISES ALIASJED AFTER PUN. DEVEI.OPHENT Uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be the same as or similar to those uses approved in Section 205.22.2. above. 4. IISES EXCLUDED Those uses unacceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans. as determined by the City, are excluded uses in S-2 Districts. 5. PROCESS FOR APPROVAL A. Plans for each individual project or combination of projects must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall have final authority to approve all project plans. B. Project plans submitted to the Planning Co�ission and City Council shall include the following minimum criteria: (1) Site plans showing the location.of buildings, off-street parking, street and utility locations� auto and pedestrian access to and fzom the project� any modification to •� existing services� grading plans, storm water plans� building exterior finish, lighting and signing and landscape plans. IISES PER?iITTED IISES E%CLIIDED io�90 13.25 2os.s2-i u (2) Written City staff review on project compatibility to the overall redevelopme:tt plan. (3) A written Housing and Redevelopment Authority (iIitp) report on project plan approval and considerations. C• Any substantial modification to the plan must be submitted through the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. 6• PERFOR?SANCE STANDARDS ' All performance standards for uses ia this district shall be comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other districts. Parking space sizes may be reduced to nine (9) feet in width upon approval of a special use permit. (Ref. Ord. 952) 10/90 13.26 � 205.22.6. S-2 District � PERFORitANCE STANDARDS 1 _ ' � - . � - 205. S2-2 . - . _ � CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY � - • • • ;_� The purpose of the preliminary plat is to create Lot 1, Biock 1 of the Fridley Executive Center ' Plat in order for the petitioner to construct a 106,705 square foot one-story flex space building. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority currently owns the entire site and will sell the 10- acre parcel to the developer. The remaining portions of the site are platted into three outlots: A, B, and C. Outlot A contains the buffer area between the single-family residential area and the proposed o�ce park. Outlot B is the remaining 10.9 acre site for the multi-story office structures. Outlot C contains the area immediately adjacent to Highway 65 for the commercial uses and contains the stormwater ponds immediately adjacent to I-694. The rights-of-way for the streets are also platted. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENQATION of 2/18/98: The Planning Commission recommended approval of PS #98-02 subject to the following � I stipulations: I 1. 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 request and the site plan and master plan requests shall be approved. CITY COUNCIL RECOMM�NDATION: Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planning Council recommendation, subject to the four stipulations recommended by staff. 14.01 Preliminary Piat of Fridley Executive Center Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Site Plan and Master Plan Amendment of the Fridley Executive Center Site. Northwest comer of I-694 and Highway 65. Proposed to be platted. 41.63 acres gross; 32.77 acres net Fairly level with raised areas for building pads. Deciduous and evergreen trees installed by the HRA. S-2 Redevelopment District and R-1 Single Family Residential (along the northern lot line) Sewer, water and storm facilities installed. Highway 65 and 7�' Street Bikeway/ walkway around the site Stormwater facilities The 1982 plan identified the area as a Redevelopment District on the 1990 Land Use Plan. Public Hearing The City Council on April 8, 1996 adopted a resolution Comments: establishing that a new environmental assessment work- sheet was not required. The findings supporting this decision contained an extensive analysis of the site issues and compared the original 1996 development plan with the current plan. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan reduces the amount of square footage as originally contemplated in 1996 and, therefore, does not require any additional need for environmental review. _ _ _- -__ 14.02 Preliminary Plat of Fridley Executive Center Page 3 WEST: ��11��;� EAST: i•� ■ ADJACENT SITES: Zoning: Multipie and single- family zoning and uses Zoning: Single-family and commercial zoning and uses Zoning: Multiple family Zoning: Single family zoning and Public Hearing Comments: uses Fridley High School Neighborhood meetings were held in 1996 regarding the originally approved Master Plan. Another neighborhood meeting was conducted in February of 1997 regarding the Highway 65 intersection improvements. The neighborhood has been notified regarding the proposed amendment, in addition to the Special Use Permit and Plat Request. � � ' •► �: The City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for this site on March 3, 1986 as part of the initial redevelopment proposal by Woodridge Properties, Inc. The plat, however, was not filed. The existing legal descriptions are old auditor subdivisions and other plats. -�•'• � ' � i��l The petitioner has proposed a preliminary plat which creates the 10-acre lot for the one-story flex space building and three outlots. Outlot B is located immediately east of the proposed development site and is approximately 10.8 acres in size. Outlot C is the commercial area and also includes the stormwater ponds immediately adjacent to Interstate-694. Outlot A is located along the northern boundary of the site and contains stormwater ponds and the buffer strip area between the single family homes and the proposed project. In 1986, MnDot also deeded to the City additional property left over from the interchange area. In fact, this property is included on the plat and is at the far east side adjacent to Highway 65. This portion of property is still owned by the City of Fridley and needs to be conveyed to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (process under way). The plat also creates the right-of-ways for the public streets which have been constructed on the property. A 60-foot right-of-way is proposed for Lake Pointe Drive, and a 50-foot right-of- 14.03 Preliminary Plat of Fridley Executive Center Page 4 way is proposed for the northern loop of Bridgewater Drive. These dimensions match the originally drawn plat. The new right-of-way line for the Lake Pointe Drive alignment and intersection is also proposed on the plat. What is not shown on the plat is the area of the Lake Pointe Drive realignment on the north side of Lake Pointe Drive where the HRA acquired finro single family homes and had them removed from the site. The HRA will need to re-plat this area once all of the dimensions and locations have been finalized and approved by MnDOT. �� • � The City typically requires developers to execute a Stormwater Pond Maintenance Agreement requiring the owner to maintain the on-site retention or detention pond. A similar requirement is recommended on this approvaL . -�:. The Park and Recreation Commission on May 6, 1996 recommended, and the City Council concurred, that the developer pay all of the required park fees at time of the issuance of building permit of the first project. If the site, however, is developed by another entity, other than MEPC for any reason, the City will need to reimburse the developer accordingly. The amount of the park dedication fee for the entire site and developable area is $36,137.81. - � � •, ._ • . � •, . : •: The Planning Commission recommended approval of PS #98-02 subject to the following stipulations: 1. 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 $36,137.81at time of building permit issuance for the Lake Pointe Technology Center. 4. The Special Use Permit request and the site plan and master plan requests shall be approved. � \ � ll ll \ � ' � Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planning Council recommendation, subject to the four stipulations recommended by staff. 14.04 -s. �� ,�"N`T � �►r ■ ;>%'<.;�.^:. � �?:�%%�; `::;;;::;: � I� ;<>;;;,: ;,,; %; ;<:; I� �� > � � i� �� !!�! ��III''�ii -.. �� 1��`�,� � � � � � �'!l�G�' � _ >��' ��,�,� I � � — _ °� ,, < �i' ,. ` � -� _ —_ �!�. �;;:>;>;;::,�>;:;:;_. � a a u I i�l �:G ■�� I�- - ! - �� . �p,� � i ��1 ,a,;�� = I ��„li�il� : "'� - �Ct��l��l�� ".o. �,. � �►�I,��■;;;, �� ' � � / �� ,��:� 1� % �Y ,, �' �` ,, ,; �'�� - !�� I��i�� I�i�l��r ��n��►t : � :, 3. 4. 5. 7F � 0�7(J:�IL M�'..._.t'I'ING OF.N�ARCH...3,-��$6�_-_----- square feet in area o 1 ing to screen parking f ence be rezoned property perforirance in the amo�t Upon a voice vote, voting una nirr:ously . r eight (8) feet in height; 6.) Provide f rcm Mississippi Street; 7.) Pravide screening and residences to the west; and 8.) Provide of $2,000. Secnnded by Cbtncilman Barnette. aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried � t�D'I'ION by Co�cilman Fitzpatrick to waive the secon eading of Ordinance No. 653 and acbpt it on the seoond reading and order pub ' tion. Seconded b}� Co�cilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. - COrSIDE�2ATI02` OF A FII�WL PIAT, P.S. #85-07. IAKE POII�II'E 00RPORATE CEI�lI' 100 ZWIN DRIVE-IN. BY t�2A IN OOOPERATION �r'ITH ��100DBRIDGE PF3�P�KTIES, INC.: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated Woodbridge Properties will be developing the 100 T�in Drive-In proFerty ar�d adjacent Johnson property and they have sutrnitted a plat for this parcel. Mr. Flora stated there may be a sli�t variation in the exact description of the raad and this would be accomplished When the final nylar of the plat is sutr�itted to the Co�cil. He outlined the three stipulations which should t�e part of the plat's aoceptance. MJTION by Co�cilman Goodspeed to apprwe the firal plat, P. S. �65-07, for wooc�ridge Properties, Inc. for developnent of the Lake Pointe Corporate Cerrter, with the follvwing stipulations: (1) Approval of final plat is.--� oontingent upon site control of the Johnson property - Lot 5, Block 5, Doru�y's Lakeview Marnr Addition; (2) Declaration of protective covenants and easenents shall be sutr�itted, approved by the City ar�d recorded with the plat. Items of concern shall include, but not be limited t�o: (a) Disposition and maintenance af outlots; (b) Restriction of oUtlots usage to green space and buffer azeas; (c) Maintenance of carmon areas; (d) L�artid use; (e) Prohibited activities; (f) Joint parking/access agreenents; and (g) Other ita;►s deened appropriate by the City Attorney; and (3) �ark fee, based on total square foota� af the replatted properties as defined in the puk,lic hearing notice, to be paid on a pro--rata basis with each building permit. Seoonded b� Go�cilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried �a�animously. . Mr. Fl or a, Publ ic Wor , sta ted Mr . I�dam caQne bef or e th e Co un ci 1 to plat land between Osborne h in order to construct a mini-storage warehouse facility. He sta code regui res the transaction be reoorded at the Co�nty within 180 days. 14.os CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR: = Plat _ Lot Split PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site pian required for submittal, see attached Address: 50 � _�� ,�-� DRiv� Property Identification Number. Legai Description: Lot Block Tract/Addition - � �rvccor�o P�uM��c�-� Current Zoning: �2 Square footage/acreage: P��tse� 436 533 sF /o.vz ,�� Reason for Subdivision: rc G�E,�-,-� �,��.�� /�yG�p��T Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes !Vo , u� I � Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �� FEE OWNER iNFORMATION (as it appears on the property titie) (Contract purchasers: Fee o s must i r� hi form prior to processing) NAME: � , ADDRESS: Y DAYTIME PHO E: _ S 7a -� S-� SI NATURE/DATE. �rrr�rr^r^r�rr�r�rw.�r.�..�..�.�r.�.�.�.�r�rnw�.�r^r�.�r�r�r�r.�.�.r�r�r�r�r�r�v�rr�..�r�r..r.�.�r^..�rw.�+�.�.�w�rwr�r�r�+�r.�r�.�r^r�r�r.v PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: M cPC., �.M,�� C,t�; i',� P�.TtES . I n� �. ADDRtSS: 55o tJt� C� ��, so. #! Z.o � Ib1,�u�6 �LI S N 55 t 6' DAYTIME PHONE: _ 5 4b - f�Ovo SIGNATURE/DATE: "`� �w /�i " Plat: $500.00 for 20 Lots 15.00 for each additional lot Tota e: �� P�• 250.00 Receipt #: ! Received By: Application Number: 9 -�Z Scheduled Planning Commission Date: �$' Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application C mpl e Nof �ca on Date: 60 Day Date: _ � �j' � �� `� C'J�O ?% 14.07 �� .�, �� % - /.�'-9 �g a. � �� £ � CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY � � - • • ; e The purpose of this request is to receive a special use permit to permit nine foot wide parking stalls, instead of 10 foot wide parking stalls, and, also a special use permit to allow a portion of the parking area within an R-1 zoning district. The S-2 redevelopment district requires a special use permit for a nine foot wide parking stall. About 24 feet of the drive aisle of the parking area proposed for the one story flex building is located within an R-1 zoning district. Further, the 1996 Master Plan approval required submission of a special use permit application if a portion of the parking area was located in the R-1 district. � •l�u �� _ •��t _�� •� • : •: The Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit #98-02 to permit a nine foot wide parking stall, subject to meeting the striping standards on file in the City Engineer's Office. The Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit #98-03 to permit a portion of the drive aisle of the parking area within an R-1 zoning district, subject to approval of the site plan, Master Plan, and plat requests. � • 1 _ : •l�u_►�� • Staff recommends the City Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 15.01 Speciai Use Permit; Parking; MEPC Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Site Plan and Master Plan Amendment of the Fridley Executive Center Site. Northwest corner of 1-694 and Highway 65 Proposed to be platted. 41.63 acres gross; 32.77 acres net Fairly level with raised areas for building pads. Deciduous and evergreen trees installed by the HRA. S-2 Redevelopment District and R-1 Single Family Residential (along the northern lot line) Sewer, water and storm facilities installed. Highway 65 and 7�' Street Bikeway/ walkway around the site Stormwater facilities The 1982 plan identified the area as a Redevelopment District on the 1990 Land Use Plan. Public Hearing The City Council on April 8, 1996 adopted a resolution Comments: establishing that a new environmental assessment work- sheet was not required. The findings supporting this 15.02 Special Use Permit; Parking; MEPC Page 3 decision contained an extensive analysis of the site issues and compared the original 1996 development pian with the current plan. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan reduces the amount of square footage as originally contemplated in 1996 and, therefore, does not require any additional need for environmental review. ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: Multiple and single- family zoning and uses SOUTH: Zoning: Single-family and commercial zoning and uses EAST: Zoning: Multiple family N T: Zoning: Single family zoning and uses Fridley High School Public Hearing Comments: Neighborhood meetings were held in 1996 regarding the originally approved Master Plan. Another neighborhood meeting was conducted in February of 1997 regarding the Highway 65 intersection improvements. The neighborhood has been notified regarding the proposed amendment, in addition to the Special Use Permit and Plat Request. � � •� •; On February 24, 1986, the City Council approved a special use permit to allow an automobile parking lot to be installed within an R-1 district, subject to two stipulations for the Woodbridge properties. The Woodbridge proposal was the original 1985 development plan proposal. The site plan at that time indicated that a portion of the surface parking lot would be located within the R-1 district. At that time, only a five foot setback was contemplated from the right-of-way line of Bridgewater Drive. The finro stipulations were that landscaping, including berming, be constructed to form a dense, year-round screen between the development and the single family homes. Second, the lighting which is used for the development be shaded or diffused to reflect light away from the adjoining property. The buffer strip befinreen the existing single family homes and Bridgewater Drive was constructed in 1997. A significant amount of vegetation now exists between the houses and Bridgewater Drive. 15.03 Special Use Permit; Parking; MEPC Page 4 On August 18, 1986, the City Council approved a rezoning of the Lake Pointe property to the S-2 redevelopment district. The rezoning, however, did not include a 126 foot wide strip from the north lot line of the property to approximately 44 feet south of the Bridgewater Drive right-of-way line. It was intended to keep this area zoned R-1 to control the buffer strip area located within this R-1 zoning. The zoning ordinance permits a nine foot wide parking space only in industrial districts and multiple family districts, if the parking space is striped according to the detail which is on file in the City Engineer's office. During the ordinance amendment process, it was determined that the width of parking spaces within the S-2 redevelopment district would be determined through a special use permit process. � :1 :_� •; ► ► •• � _�� ►��i_L��+�# The rationale for a nine foot wide parking stall in industrial areas and in the multiple family district was that these areas were not districts which contained uses which had high turnover of public traffic. Most uses located in these zones are for businesses with large employee workforces or uses which primarily have peak time traffic in the morning `� and in the late afternoon. During the ordinance amendment process, the definition of a parking stall was amended to require that a nine foot wide space would be striped according to the detail on file in the City Engineer's office (see attached detail). Essentially, the proposed detail requires a double stripe to help guide a motorist to park in the center of the parking space. The site plan for the one story flex space building proposes a nine foot wide parking space. The uses in this building will not have high traffic tumover. -- '-:u • : • � i '�: •► • �► � •u•: __ '_:. � ' i � � �\ ► � i Section 205.07.01 C(7) requires a special use permit for automobile parking lots for off street parking spaces for any use on adjacent land. The code also establishes minimum setbacks when the parking area is adjacent to a residential area. The subject property is unique in that a 35 foot wide buffer strip area has already been created immediately adjacent to the existing lot lines of the single family homes and, thus, meet s the planting strip requirement established in the code. The actual edge of the parking area is approximately 105 feet from the rear lot line of the existing single family homes. This dimension is in excess of the original dimension which was approved in 1986, and exceeds the minimum 35 foot setback requirement established in the code. The edge of the parking area is set back 20 feet from the south right-of-way line of Bridgewater Drive, which meets the current setback requirements. The previous plan only had a setback of five feet from the right-of-way line. 15.04 Special Use Permit; Parking; MEPC Page 5 The petitioner is also proposing to install a techny arborvitae hedge in the buffer area to screen the opening to the loading area at the rear of the building. This will screen the view from the rear yards of the homes to the north of the subject property. _�� •u�� : •�t�� ►�: •► • • •: The Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit #98-02 and #98-03 as recommended by staff. r • ► :_ •►�►�_•�- •► Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. 15.05 -.. �� - ��11■�3�III - � -_.� �.-- ---�e - ,�� ; r ,�:f-. : -�: ;,,.,,: �.,,;; �:;, � � : - _�` .�� `;;,;; � = �� . Ip •� ��'�„ � .� , _ _ - '� :;'"`; ; °- � � i , ;;:� � �� III�I�I �■ � : - � �/i��ii! - - =�� -- � ��C��, ��l��i�i��i . ,. - : �g� T �t� . � ,� I��i„G��I�I�e1� „' . _ �� _ . � � _� � f F , � l/% � / / -/ .. ;.ii .i�.. ..i �'�/ , �/ � / / , .. „i ;i!ri �y � / F // � /�� 1 l � : ! � l :% / "%�. . / °7 iI�;JG:{:%:%!.... � � G%��'%.:":6:.'s: !.,. 'i�' � /4 r�.�.Fl!�... !/. �J;/f:r'/!`;`/ // % !:'�I�;';! /� �` �. F i ;.y; ,, � ;�.. / ;.,.;..i. .:<...�;::: i :..;. f� � �. ��%/�.:i:.%:r',`;fi,+..ji:i7i i%:�F ..�/. . i¢�.,f,.�i'/.;',',iif%L•.`/%':i{j �il/':�, f//., ;f!1, j:fj% :%n��Q/,�� ff.rf ' / .. � '/• z�ii.;,/,•::<, i�:f��:�:u�.%:..,,�../:::.r. .::z,:<s::�:>:: . �..�/:.,;.rf;4'+!b�.r�s:b:::�';.,:.: i�.;; :;1:., o,q/ %./'>,,,/ � f / �.,..:9 • i i : ro.,� .. �,. F,. ,,.:.Sz�i: >/'�:' :i ::? i::'�5!f: S•/.%% J%r%'r.':' :;i:z� :+::a>:6.::>,! :'/.+. � % . Jv.� !l/.,: ; •://;5!i�' . � � � :4;: i//1/f/':�F:. i i i y: Y4�2;: ;flf� �,.,,./,: ,!;::i :n.•.x.:0:.:i�...:n>:.1�..::;� �rG::i ::�,%�.,if�/�,.J,.��/i��.� �, � iiir»�. - '�� f%�!� _ -� � f��l��i �. � �� . //��r�/� . f� �� ` ■1��111■ ..; _ �� .:�%�� i!�l�� ' „'�' -�:;.i �i�� ! ��illiii��- : � :�� y �� . - -----.-� � f 47. Lot� Double Frontage. A lot with opposite lot lines on two (2) nonintersecting streets. Both street frontages shall be considered as front yard areas. 48. Lot, Frontage. The front of a lot shall be that boundary of a lot along a street right of way. If a lot is a corner lot� the front sha1L be the shorter lot line that abuts the street right of way, but if the dimensions of a corner lot are within ten percent (10$) of being equal� the owner may select either street lot line as the front. 49. Lot Width. The horizontal distance between.the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point equal to the minimum required front yard depth. S0. Mobile Home Park. An approved area for the parking of occupied manufactured homes. 51. Motel. A building containing guest rooms� with direct access to garage or parking space s, and which is used for the accommodation of transient individuals. � 52. Motor Vehicle. Any vehicle which is self propelled. 53. Nonconforming Use. Any building, structure or land lawfully occupied by a use or lawfully existing at the time of the passage of this Chapter or amendments thereto� which does not conform with the regulations of this Chapter or future amendments� for the district in which it is situated. 54, Nursing Home. A State licensed facility used to provide care for the aged and informed persons who require nursing care and related services. SS. Parking Stall. A ten (10) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1) automobile� which has access to a public street or alley�and permits ingress and egress of an automobile. Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for uses specified elsewhere in this code. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk, the length may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet. Parking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the design on file in the office of the City Engineer. (Ref. Ord. 952) Ob/91 15.07 205.03.55. 205-8 � i � i t I r �-�-� NOTE= STRIPES TO BE 4' WIDE. o' C IT� �� PARKTNr-- STALLS - 9' WIDTH Q 15.08' F R I D LE Y DRN: SCALE: MAV 1 �7/5/90 3/16'=1' CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY qVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612} 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR: ____ Residential Second Accessory X Others PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittai, see attached Address: . � ( (�� ;,� � Property Identification Number. Legal Description: Lot �_ BIo� �_ Tract/Addition _�+i��, ��un� �,�-��, � . Cunent Zoning: S 2 Square footage/acreage: �f3� , 5�33 SF� !0, a� A c V Reason for Special Use: �a R�covES�NU �'o �� u�;�� P,�K,�,�, Sr� ��r �,��,� � �o, <_.- w�v� - /�N�B� . _ �� - � �iave you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes _ No � !f Yes, whic#t ci�y? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �...�,��_�....,,��.,,.....,...� .:. ..... ..............r...�.....,........,......... .................,....,..,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,, FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchase� F owners us sign this form prior to processing) NAME: -E-r `�� ADDRESS: , �� ; � � DAYTIME PHONE: �7a - 3�v-p �GNqTURE/DATE�!�-,/i•t.__ :� PETITIONER INFORMATION jr�u,`�.��'�c-�-(�-- NAME: tit ��c q�Ri rs� PROPv/�i�r� ik c ,� ,�DDi�ESS: lsso vr:c�.. ��, sv �/ n �M�r�e�ous M•✓ s DAYTIME PHONE. 5�F6 - P'000 SIGNATURE/DATE:J�( �x.a.� �� ;— :-�>=Ss _ _ _.__�_��,.��v�v�N�V�I�V�iArVN�VV Section of City Code: F_ Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accesso 00.00 dwOth rs Application Number: y'�3-�Receipt #: � aU eceived y: Scheduled Planning Commission Date: Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application omp ete Notificati n� Date: 60 Day Date: _ �j�� 7 ��,p� �� :e �� - ��'7� � 15.09 � (,(1 i GY �., �' � i' � � �� CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR: "� Residential Second Others � PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached - Address: .Sr � (�.+� � �.rt� dZ. Property Identification Number. Legal Description: Lot �_ Block _� Tract/Addition �ri��e Ex��u�r�,v� CEN �EEt � Current Zoning: S 2 Square footage/acreage: _�{3� , 533 SF,/ �D: o� •� c Reason for Special Use_ � ' -'-- � - ' � - M�tNiBE :�i rec��sn;✓G r �N �or o,e1�F R�sr,� w�i� R-i zo�✓i�,G . rJisia�� -.�.,,,..-,,, Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No � !f Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? � Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �...... �.. ............... � �............... � FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchaser�;, F owners us sign this form prior to processing) NAME: -E�' �� ADDRESS: ' v�t..�. � � ` �i f� DAYTIME PHONE: _�7a? - 35��?'O IGNATURE/DATE�,Q-J,%r�,.,,. � 11A�AIA�AI/WVANyiVA/N�y�� . .. . .. � ANV^I�IN�WYA� . PETITIONER INFORMATION � . NAM E: n�t Epc- �Rr r� P�PcR�i�r� i,v c . ADDi'.ESS: sso ur%ca ��, sv � M�r�e�us .✓ s / DAYTIME PHONE: 54�G -�'000 SIGNATURE/DATE: ` i- i>--5g Section of City Code: v - FEES Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accesso 00 6wOthers Application Number: � Receipt #: �1�Z4 eceived By: . Scheduled Planning Commission Date: Scheduled City Council Date: . 10 Day Application omp ete Notificati n Date: 60 Day Date: �j � , c�� 7� � G�cF.✓�; v�, �, , 15.10 �' `�i 1 � l!1 .�—� �vv r r c�( Q C%{ f�..��G�tC� ._.1 � ..� � � CRY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2,1998 INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS 16.01 '