Loading...
PLM 01/15/2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 15, 2014 Vice-Chair Oquist called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, Tim Solberg, Leroy Oquist and Jack Velin MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Dunham and David Kondrick OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Hugh Roberson, Tri-land Developments Glenn Johnson, Tri-land Developments Roger Fink,Trident Development Kurt Swanson, 6010 Fifth Street NE Muriel Sharpe, 5924 Fifth Street NE APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: December 18, 2013 MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a public hearing for a Preliminary Plat, PS #14-01, by Tri-Land Developments, LLC, to subdivide the existing large lot; to create two (2) separate parcels from the original lot; for development along 57th Avenue, generally located at 250 57th Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:13 P.M. Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, stated the petitioner Mr. Johnson, of Tri-land th Developments Inc., the owner of the property located at 250 57 Avenue is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide the existing large lot. The proposed subdivision will create two th separate parcels from the original lot; for development along 57 Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated creation of these separate lots will allow each parcel to have its own tax parcel and tax bill, which is what McDonald’s and the petitioner would like to happen. Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Interstate 694 and University Avenue. It is surrounded by right-of-way on all sides. In 1966 the original 165,000 Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 2 of 22 square foot building was constructed. Two variances were granted on the subject property since it was originally developed, one to reduce the amount of required parking stalls and another to allow the construction of a loading dock facing the public right-of-way. The lot has already been replatted twice to allow for the creation of the existing CVS lot and Holiday gas station lot. Mr. Hickok stated in 2010 the property was rezoned from C-3, General Shopping to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Since that rezoning was approved, several changes have occurred on the site. Approximately 30,000 square feet of the original building has been removed, Cub Foods has moved to a smaller space on the west side of the building, and the Fridley Liquor Store has a new space on the east side of the building. The entire interior and exterior of the building have been completely renovated. A new free-standing McDonald’s building has been th constructed on the proposed Lot 2, along 57 Avenue. The entire parking lot has also been redone, with the installation of new landscaped medians. The property will continue to be modified as new tenants occupy the site and additional buildings are constructed. Mr. Hickok stated Tri-land Developments Inc. is seeking to replat the subject property to allow for the creation of two separate parcels from the original lot, which will allow for further th development along 57 Avenue. The proposed replat will consist of three lots that will be legally described as: Lot 1, Lot, 2, and Lot 3, Block 1, Fridley Market. Proposed Lot 1 will be 608,839 square feet or 13.98 acres in size; Lot 2 will be 31,406 square feet or .72 acre in size; and Lot 3 will be 27,532 square feet or .63 acres in size. Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The PUD designation was approved to allow flexibility with the redevelopment of the property. When the rezoning was approved, a General Plan of Development was also approved that establishes guidelines that dictate what type of quality development the City wants to see. Mr. Hickok stated the PUD zoning does not have a lot size minimum or maximum; however, staff has generally referred to the most similar zoning designation for comparison. The C-3, General Shopping, minimum lot size is 35,000 square feet; and the C-2, General Business, minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, where the main building is located, would most closely relate to a C-3, General Shopping, zoning designation; while Lots 2 and 3 would most closely relate to a C-2, General Business, zoning designation. Based on those comparisons the proposed subdivision would comply with code requirements. Since the PUD zoning does not have a minimum lot size requirement and allows flexibility in meeting regular code standards, staff has determined that this preliminary plat meets the intent of the PUD zoning designation and redevelopment of this property. Mr. Hickok stated though Lots 2 and 3 will be separate from Lot 1 for sale and tax purposes, the PUD zoning will need to stay with those properties to ensure lot size compliance. Shared parking and access easements will also need to be established between the lots. Mr. Hickok stated City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat request, with stipulations as the plat meets the intent of the PUD zoning. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends that if the preliminary plat is granted, the following stipulations be attached: Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 3 of 22 1. The purpose of this plat request is for development and finance purposes. Lots 2 and 3 shall not be separated from the PUD zoning designation unless all three lots within this development are re-evaluated and the City agrees the PUD can be modified to reflect that change. 2. The petitioner shall establish and file at Anoka County a shared access agreement between Tri-land Developments Inc. and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Fridley Market, upon final plat approval. 3. The petitioner shall establish and file at Anoka County a shared parking agreement between Tri-land Developments Inc. and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Fridley Market, upon final plat approval. 4. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fee for Lot 2 of $722.33 and Lot 3 of $633.23 upon issuance of a building permit for a building for Lot 3. Vice-Chair Oquist asked the petitioner if he has seen the stipulations? Hugh Roberson , Executive Vice-President of Tri-land Developments, replied, they have and find them reasonable. Commissioner Saba stated it is pretty straightforward. Commissioner Velin asked the petitioner when is this all going to take place? Mr. Roberson replied the continued redevelopment of the center will unfold over the next 12-24 months. They have plans that are basically done for a 9,600 square foot building on what he believes is Lot 3 now. They have other tentative interest in the balance of the former Gander Mountain space for about 30,000 feet of what is about 50,000 square feet. They are just wrapping up some of the preliminary construction on that now; however, much of the outside work has been done. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:18 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Saba Approving Preliminary Plat, PS #14-01, by Tri-Land Developments, LLC, to subdivide the existing large lot; to create two (2) separate parcels from the original lot; for development along 57th Avenue, generally located at 250 57th Avenue NE with the following stipulations: 1. The purpose of this plat request is for development and finance purposes. Lots 2 and 3 shall not be separated from the PUD zoning designation unless all three lots within this development are re-evaluated and the City agrees the PUD can be modified to reflect that change. 2. The petitioner shall establish and file at Anoka County a shared access agreement between Tri-land Developments Inc. and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Fridley Market, upon final plat approval. 3. The petitioner shall establish and file at Anoka County a shared parking agreement between Tri-land Developments Inc. and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Fridley Market, upon final plat approval. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 4 of 22 4. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fee for Lot 2 of $722.33 and Lot 3 of $633.23 upon issuance of a building permit for a building for Lot 3. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a public hearing for a Street and Alley Vacation, SAV #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC and the City of Fridley's Housing and Redevelopment Authority, to allow for the redevelopment of the Gateway NE properties, which are generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. The street proposed to be vacated is a portion of 60th Avenue NE from the University Avenue Service Drive to the alley on the east side of the subject parcels. The alley proposed to be vacated is located to the east of the subject parcels and south of vacated 59th Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a public hearing for an S-2, Redevelopment District Master Plan, MP #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC, to allow for the development of the Gateway NE properties, with the construction of three (3) new multi-family residential buildings, generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a public hearing for a Transit Oriented District (TOD) Master Plan, TOD #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC, to allow for the development of the Gateway NE properties, with the construction of three (3) new multi-family residential buildings, generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearings. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE OPENED AT 7:41 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated she will be presenting public hearings No. 2, 3, and 4 together, as it relates to one project. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 5 of 22 Ms. Stromberg, stated Roger Fink of Trident Development, LLC, is requesting three land use items to allow for the redevelopment of the properties located at 5831, 5865, 5895, 5905, 5925, 5943, 6005, 6041, 6061, and 6071 University Avenue, known as, “Gateway Northeast”. 1. S-2 Master Plan – These properties were rezoned in 2012 from C-2 General Business to S-2 Redevelopment District to accommodate future redevelopment. Once there is a development plan for the properties, an S-2 Master Plan needs to be reviewed and approved by the City Council before development can start on site. 2. TOD Master Plan – These properties are within the TOD Overlay District, so a TOD Master Plan also needs to be reviewed and approved by the City Council before development can start. 3. Street and Alley Vacation – In order to accommodate the redevelopment of the subject th properties, a portion of 60 Avenue from the University Avenue Service Drive to the alley on the east side of the subject properties. An alley is also proposed to be vacated that is th to the east of the subject properties and south of vacated 59 Avenue. At a later date, a vacation request will be submitted for the University Avenue Service Drive. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is asking for approval of the above requested land use items to allow the construction of a phased project for a multi-family apartment community, to be called “Cielo”. The project will include three separate buildings with the Phase 1 building st starting on the corner of University Avenue and 61 Avenue. Phase 2 and Phase 3 buildings will continue south on the remaining properties. There will be covered and surface parking available for all three buildings as well as the installation of new landscape features and storm water treatment. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject properties are approximately 8.86 acres in size total and front thst on the University Avenue Service Drive from 58 Avenue to 61 Avenue. They were originally developed mainly in the 1950’s and 1960’s for commercial uses, restaurant and gas stations. When access was limited as a result of upgrading University Avenue, several of the businesses began to suffer and as a result significant vacancies occurred and the buildings became blighted. Ms. Stromberg stated the City and the HRA have wished to redevelop this area for a number of years. Consequently, the HRA started to acquire some of the properties in 2006 after being approached by property owners wanting to sell their obsolete retail buildings. Acquisitions of the properties concluded in 2013 and demolition of the properties was done in three phases. The first phase of demolition was started in late 2009, the second phase took place in 2011, and the last building that was purchased in 2013 (Vet Clinic) was also demolished that same year. The HRA currently owns all of properties involved in these land use requests. Ms. Stromberg stated prior to demolition of the buildings, resolutions were adopted determining that certain parcels are occupied by structurally substandard buildings and were to be included in a tax increment financing district. To acquire and prepare the site for reuse, the HRA has spent over $4.5 million. The properties have a value, depending on its reuse, between $1-2 Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 6 of 22 million. It is this difference of $2.5-3.5 million that will be paid from the tax increment financing district. If it was not for the availability of tax increment to pay for acquisition, demolition, relocation, environmental remediation, infrastructure, and site preparation this project would not proceed. Ms. Stromberg stated in 2007 the HRA partnered with the Corridor Housing Initiative to brainstorm, collaborate, and develop some plans for the future of the subject properties. The buildings proposed by the petitioner are of the similar height and scale as those buildings the neighbors and other residents designed for the site at that time. Ms. Stromberg presented two sketches of the buildings designed by the residents. Ms. Stromberg stated in late 2011 the HRA hired Premier Commercial Partners to market the properties. In 2012 there was interest from three different parties wanting to purchase all or at least portions of the property for redevelopment. As a result City Planning staff and the HRA decided it would be beneficial to have the properties rezoned to the redevelopment district to give the potential buyer/development more flexibility when designing a project. Since the rezoning approval staff has been working with the Trident Group to develop a plan that meets the goals of the HRA and the City. Ms. Stromberg stated over the few months, City staff and the HRA have spent a great deal of time working with Trident, their surveyor, the HRA’s title company, Mn/DOT, and Anoka County to identify and clean up the issues that are always associated with plats that were recorded 130 years ago. The issues include alleyways that were vacated but not filed at the County, Mn/DOT parcels that have been turned back to the City, and other minor corrections that Anoka County is helping to fix. We expect all of the title/plat issues to be resolved in time to allow for a transfer of property to the petitioner this spring. Ms. Stromberg stated there have also been meetings with utility companies to identify locations of utilities, to ensure that existing utilities will be protected and review new locations for any and all utilities. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed development, which will be called, “The Cielo”, will have a total of 256 apartment units, contained in three separate buildings. Each building is proposed to be four stories, with three stories of living above indoor, ground level parking. Two of the buildings proposed have 104 units and the third building has 57 units. Buildings 1 and 2 will be connected to each other through a skyway. Each building will have adequate parking and green space provided to accommodate the development. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has designed the project with removal of the University st Avenue Service Drive. A new private drive coming off of 61 Avenue will be installed on the east side of the subject properties, which will allow access to the project. The project will also th receive access from 60 Avenue and on the south end of the site from the Service Road connected to 57 ½ Avenue. The City is currently working with Anoka County and Mn/DOT on the University Avenue Service Road turn-back documents. This means MnDOT did turn back the service road to the Fridley; however, staff is working on finalizing some title document issues. Once staff has the clarification needed on those documents, a street vacation request of the service road will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The buildings are going to be pushed closer to University Avenue approximately 15-20 feet from the Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 7 of 22 property line. There will be no more service road; however, the sidewalk will remain in front of the building. Ms. Stromberg stated according to the petitioner, “due to the long, narrow shape of the site, the buildings are positioned in a lineal fashion fronting the length of University Avenue. The buildings are situated approximately 90 feet from the eastern property line, where the rear yards of the single-family homes are located. The surface parking is located on the east side of the building so as to not be visible from University Avenue. A portion of the development will be green space which will offer outdoor amenities such as walking trails, a picnic and grilling area and a gazebo. This open space also allows for certain amount of storm water infiltrations. Sidewalks are also included in the design, providing convenient pedestrian access to public sidewalks and to other areas of the neighborhood.” Ms. Stromberg stated as to the S-2 Master Plan, when any property is rezoned to S-2 Redevelopment District, it requires that the accompanying site plan become the Master Plan for the site. Once the S-2 Master Plan is approved by the City Council, any modification to that approved master plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. When this site was rezoned in 2012, a master plan was not developed and as a result, “the plan” was not approved with the rezoning. This is the first master plan the City is reviewing for the subject properties. Ms. Stromberg stated review and recommendation is also required by the HRA to the City Council before the master plan can be approved. The HRA has seen the plans for the proposed project and will formally review this request at their February 6, 2014 meeting. To allow the HRA time to review this application before it goes to the City Council, this item will go before the City Council on February 10, 2014. Ms. Stromberg stated as to the TOD Master Plan the Planning Commission and City Council will recall that in 2011, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District was approved. The subject properties are within the TOD Overlay District. See map to the right, for the TOD district boundaries. Ms. Stromberg stated the purpose for the adoption of the TOD Overlay is to: A. Implement code requirements that will encourage dense, mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly development within a one-half mile of the Northstar Commuter Rail Station in Fridley. B. Create multi-modal connections to the Fridley Northstar Commuter Rail Station that allow for safe access to the station no matter what means of transportation someone uses. C. Create a neighborhood identity with the Northstar Station that promotes the use of mass transit, human interactions, safety and livability. D. Reduce automobile dependency by locating a variety of land uses within a half mile of the train station. E. Provide life cycle housing for people of different income levels and housing space needs within one half mile of the train station. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed development is the City’s third TOD Overlay Master Plan request that aims to achieve the desires the City set forth when creating this district. As a result Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 8 of 22 the project needs to comply with the TOD standards that were designed to enhance the pedestrian scale and safety of any particular development. The TOD Overlay allows for flexibility when designing a redevelopment project that encourages dense, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly developments. It was also created to minimize the use of the automobile by allowing reduction in parking requirements, if certain conditions can be met and sidewalks are constructed. Ms. Stromberg stated over the last eight years the City’s HRA has been purchasing and demolishing the dilapidated buildings along this corridor of University Avenue to allow for future redevelopment. The petitioner has designed a project that meets the TOD standards that will enhance the development and achieve what the City and HRA were hoping to see with redevelopment of this land. Ms. Stromberg stated as to the Street and Alleyway Vacation request, in order to th accommodate the proposed development, a portion of 60 Avenue needs to be vacated as well th as a 12-foot alley located south of vacated 59 Avenue. As stated above, at a later date, the petitioner and HRA will bring before the Planning Commission and City Council a street vacation request for the University Avenue Service Road. th Ms. Stromberg stated if the portion of 60 Avenue is vacated, the entire land area would be turned over to the existing property owner, who is currently the HRA. There are several utilities located within this right-of-way, so once vacated; the area will need to be retained as an easement. The petitioner is planning to landscape this area and keep in open. They also plan th to construct a skyway from Building 1 to Building 2, which will go over the vacated 60 Avenue, but will allow enough room for utility companies to get access if need be. Ms. Stromberg stated when the 12-foot alley is vacated, the abutting property owners will acquire 6 feet of additional land along their rear lot lines. As a result the HRA would get 6 feet, and the neighboring properties to the east would get 6 feet. The additional land area is needed to make this project successful. Ms. Stromberg stated Trident Development, LLC did have a neighborhood meeting last Thursday and told City staff it was a good meeting with well-pointed questions. There were about 16 members of the neighborhood present, and a copy of the petitioner’s notes from the meeting is in front of them tonight and should be entered into the record. Staff has heard from four neighbors about the proposed project, and one of them was just inquiring about the neighborhood meeting and whether it was going to be on television. Then there was another neighbor who just had some general questions, not saying if they were for or against the project. Also, two neighbors she heard from this week were not happy about the development being multi-family; they wanted to see something more commercial or single family in nature. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the S-2 and TOD Master Plans with stipulations as they meet the purpose of the TOD Overlay District, the proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and they provide additional housing opportunities. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 9 of 22 Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the street and alley vacation request provided that the City of Fridley reserves onto itself and other utility providers a permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes. The following are the recommended stipulations as part of the S-2 Master Plan and TOD Master Plan approval: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the master site plan, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 2. The building shall be developed in accordance with the architectural exterior elevations sheets, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The petitioner shall ensure that the any signage meet code requirements and shall obtain a separate sign permit prior to installation. 6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7. A buffer between the residential properties to the east and the proposed project, through the use of a fence, landscaping or a combination of both shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall install said buffer at the same time Building #1 is constructed. 8. Replacement of chain link fence along the Mn/DOT right-of-way will be incorporated as part of this project. The fence design and installation shall be agreed upon and approved by Mn/DOT, the City’s HRA, the City and the Developer and said agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. 9. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. All lighting in the development shall be shielded and downcast. Lighting shall be provided through free-standing lighting that adequately illuminates the sidewalk. 12. All crosswalks shall be installed using a colorized pavement pattern when connecting the sidewalk on each side of a driveway. All connections shall be accessible. 13. If the square footage of the footprint of any of the buildings proposed changes by more than 10 percent at that phase of the development, an S-2 master plan and TOD master plan amendment shall be required. 14. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer’s obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff accepting staff’s presentation as part of the record for Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 10 of 22 MOTION by Commissioner Saba receiving the January 9, 2014, neighborhood meeting notes submitted to staff by the petitioner. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Saba asked for clarification on the all vacation, Ms. Stromberg mentioned part of an vacation has already been made and 6 feet would go to the developer, 6 feet would go to the City, and 6 feet would go to the property owners on the east side. It is 18 feet. Ms. Stromberg replied, no, the alley is 12 feet. When the alley is vacated, 6 feet will go to the HRA because it owns the property on the west side of the alley; and the 6 feet will go to the neighboring properties on the east side. Commissioner Solberg asked about the west side of the building facing University Avenue. He is not sure if that is where the stipulations for S-2 Master Plan, No. 8, where it talks about the chain link fence, he understands that they are going to eliminate the service road that is there now. Then they are going to reinstall the chain link fence, is that correct? If that is the case is there any way or reason that is binding the City of doing that; or perhaps there is an opportunity to eliminate that. Mr. Hickok replied, very good question; and it is something the City Manager is working very closely with the State on removing the fence along University Avenue. One thing is for certain, we do not want the MnDOT fence that exists there right now; and that is going to be part of the redevelopment. Staff thinks that for symmetry there will be some sort of ornamental fence that st will carry on up to the point of 61. It might be a modification of what they see on west side; st however, they think it is important that, up to the point of 61 that a more ornamental fence st would be installed on that side. However, north of 61 Ave there is an effort to take out the MnDOT fence and not have it on either side of the road. Then it would give you symmetry up to st 61 and then clear the way once you get past that. Staff thinks though as part of this development and it is in staff’s recommendation in that stipulation that there be an agreement on the design of that fence, and that it be agreed upon not only by the City and the developer but by MnDOT as well. Commissioner Saba asked about the setback standards on the front yard setback, it says in st the report approximately 43 feet from the property line closest to 61 Avenue; the petitioner has left additional land on the north side of the building to allow for an elevator and stairway building connection that could at some point connect to a possible skyway. Do we have any timeframe? What is the status of that possible walkway crossing University Avenue? Commissioner Hickok replied, as many of them will recall staff did make an application to the Metropolitan Council for design funds for an overpass over University Avenue as part of this redevelopment area. Although the City scored fairly well, it did not score high enough to get the funding to do that. The City has not given up on that hope. Staff does think that this being part of the TOD and having bus and train so close to this site, this would be a very important element. The developer agrees with the City to the extent they have allowed land north of their building to provide for that elevator core which would attach to that skyway then over University Avenue. Also, they have even designed into their project the ability for somebody in the building Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 11 of 22 st south of 61 could stay inside and go to that elevator core and/or stay on that level and cross University Avenue, go down to the elevator/stairs, or continue west to the train. This project has been designed with the idea that at some point we would do this. A fairly expensive venture, from what staff understands at least in the early rounds of discussion. More money will be available to the City once it gets the actual design done. There seems to be more opportunities and funding sources for construction money than the actual design money. The first step in the process is for the City to get it designed. Commissioner Saba stated they are talking about landscaping and the addition of 114 trees, what kind of size are they looking at and what kind of maintenance plan will there be to make sure these trees survive and thrive? Ms. Stromberg replied, with any development the petitioner needs to comply with the landscape plan that is submitted to the City and, if a tree dies, they need to replace it. Commissioner Saba stated normally the City has a minimum diameter. Ms. Stromberg replied, for a coniferous tree the minimum height at installation is 6 feet and a deciduous tree needs to be 2.5 inch caliber at time of planting. Roger Fink, senior vice-president of Trident Development, stated they have been through a number of very productive meetings involving numerous staff members, the HRA, title companies, utilities companies, to get this project laid out to what they see here today. He has some comments speaking more to the property apartments, the features, amenities, tenant profile, etc. They believe their site design meets or exceeds all of the design standards of the TOD overlay district. Mr. Fink stated when they first set out to design the overall plan for the Cielo, they really had five primary planning objectives. They were to introduce a new, contemporary, urban element to the University corridor. They wanted to create a definite presence that was sort of an image or a landmark if you will for Fridley and the University corridor. They also wanted to continue what they believe is a positive streetscape that is occurring right now traveling north of 694 with that wrought iron fence and brick bollard. They like that look. Mr. Hickok commented on the benefits of that, and it was another one of their objectives. Mr. Fink stated they wanted to promote the mass transit connections, recognizing the proximity to the bus stops and to the commuter rail depot. They wanted to be sure their tenants had access to that as they believe many of their tenants will be commuters, many will take care of that mass transit rather than rely on an automobile. Finally, they wanted to design flexibility with the site plan that allowed them to proceed through the phases of this property as the market would demand. Design it so that it meets an immediate need, they meet a future need, and they meet a third needs that they believe is also an unmet need here in Fridley. Mr. Fink stated the first building of the first phase is the northernmost building which is 104 units. The reason for that being the first one has to do with the extension of utilities as it stands st right now. They believe they will be pulling utilities from the 61 connection and continuing those south as the development proceeds. The final building of the three-phased project would be the smaller one at the south end. They envision that building might attract more of an age- Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 12 of 22 restrictive tenant base there. They recognize that there also is an unmet need in this market area of 55 and older active senior apartments. They experienced that when they built the Landmark of Fridley, the assisted living property at Mississippi and Central. They also did a market study which led them to also believe there are not a lot of available apartments if you are an active senior, an active couple who are 55 and older and want that maintenance free apartment rental lifestyle. They are looking at that as a potential market segment as well. Mr. Fink stated the site was really laid out, organized, constrained by a number of things. There were the dimensional restraints, the property being rather shallow in depth as well as long and narrow. This kind of drives the entire site plan. They have some existing significant underground utility structures and to relocate, route, or remove them would be financially as infeasible to deal with that. Mr. Fink stated they had about a four-hour meeting with their architectural team this morning and had a lot of give and take regarding color, windows, materials, etc. Some of those elements are still up for debate. However, he wanted to make clear to the Planning Commission that it is their intent to maintain the urban and contemporary appearance they have here with the design but are not extremely fond of the bright red accents; therefore, they are examining other colors that might be more visually appealing. They are not all that excited about stark white field. That needs to be warmed up. They do think the exterior materials will be a variety of different durable maintenance-free materials. They are examining a cultured stone project for the foundation wainscoting. He has a sample of something he found interesting which he can show them. The primary element for the exterior material would be a product called EFIS which is an exterior insulation finishing system. That gives them a lot of flexibility in terms of introducing color and release and serves many useful purposes, is very durable, and maintenance free. Finally, there is a third material the architect is introducing. There is a horizontal material you see from the first and second floor which is intended to be more of a metallic finished product. They have yet determined exactly what they want to use there; however, they do want a third material introduced to this to add variety on the exterior materials. Suffice to say they are intent on having durable and maintenance-free exterior materials there. Mr. Fink stated based on the market study they conducted in the Fridley area which extended into Blaine and Spring Lake Park, Columbia Heights, and into New Brighton indicated there is immediate need for additional rental housing at these specific site in excess of 200 units. That market study also income-qualified those residents having a household income of $40,000 or more. They intend this property to be 100 percent market-rate meaning there will be no rental subsidies, no Section 42 tax credit, no Section 8 vouchers proposed in this property. They plan to have conventional financing and no subsidized or low-income units here. That subject came up in the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Fink stated for a tenant profile they envision they will see single professionals, working couples, perhaps some empty nesters that will find this location and this housing lifestyle attractive. The rental range as what they are looking at right now and which is supported by the market study would indicate a one bedroom in the rental range of $950 a month with the largest unit of three bedrooms being in the $1,500 a month range. That is what is consistent with what new competitive properties in the market now are achieving. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 13 of 22 Mr. Fink stated they do have a variety of unit styles. They are proposing a small number of studio units. About 8 of those in the first building. There is a variety of one-bedroom units; 36 one-bedrooms, 48 two-bedrooms, and 12 three-bedroom units which would make up the 104- unit building. Inside the building they have programmed a number of interior amenities. Again, they had the market study examine existing competing properties for the amenity package that they offer and came up with something that is pretty attractive. Mr. Fink stated they will have a very generous community room furnished with a kitchenette, a big screen T.V., seating, and an attached outdoor patio. There will be a fitness center which will have secured access and equipped with gym-quality equipment, treadmills, ellipiticals, weight machines, also finished with mirrors and televisions. They have also introduced the idea of an inside private movie theater which will be the first property he has developed with this amenity. The lobby is a two-story atrium designed so will be a very prominent and welcoming entrance to the main building. They also have on-site management with a management office in each building. Last but not least some adequate tenant storage for additional storage outside the apartment unit if necessary. Mr. Fink stated they also have amenities planned outdoors as well. He calls the green space between the two buildings his central park. This is where they are proposing to organize their outdoor amenity activities. On one end will be a gazebo outdoor feature. On the other side they are proposing more of a picnic and grilling area. In the center is probably where they will situate an infiltration pond going on there. On that note he would say that area will not be adequate to do all of their stormwater treatment. They are proposing additional infiltration basins elsewhere as well as some underground stormwater infiltration structures beneath the parking lot. Mr. Fink stated as to unit features, in general they will find each unit will have a private balconies, fully-equipped kitchen appliance packages, center island, pantries, track lighting, a full washer and dryer in each apartment, walk-in closets, raised panel interior doors, window treatments, and central air conditioning systems by use of the magic pack self-contained HVAC systems. Mr. Fink stated in light of the staff review they have had of this plan and in light of the neighborhood meeting, they have sort of pulled together a list of plan change considerations they are looking at right now. He would like to go through each of these so they can understand what they are looking at, what might be approved, and taken forward to the Council depending on the outcome here. Nothing extremely significant; however, worth noting. Mr. Fink stated the first one is a stipulation for a six-foot fence. The neighborhood group expressed a preference for a seven-foot high privacy fence. They are okay with a seven-foot high private fence. They also talked about how that privacy fence might look and circulated a couple of photographs of different vinyl-clad, maintenance free, privacy fences. The neighbors were able to pick out their preferred design. They are okay with proceeding with that, and he has samples to show them. Mr. Fink stated one other idea which he really supports and that they are considering is st regarding the new entrance on 61 Street. They have a divided island separating the inbound from the outbound traffic. They want to redesign that slightly. One thing they would like to st improve on is they would like to widen the lane for the inbound traffic off of 61. Their engineer Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 14 of 22 says if they widen it by about one or one-half feet, then that should alleviate the concern of the Fire Department making their turn into that property without colliding with any improvements they might have in the median. They would love to have a monument sign located in that center median designating their property. Their civil engineer has done a turning analysis of the largest ladder truck who said, one foot wider and they can turn right in there. Mr. Fink stated the next improvement he would like to make is make the exiting lane (the lane st that goes out onto 61) wide enough to provide for two lanes of traffic, one that would be turning left and one that would be turning right. Mr. Fink stated as to the last improvement he would like to make that entire entrance drive a little bit longer. There is a lull just to the south that he would like to eliminate that in some st fashion and allow for additional stacking of cars, making that exit out onto 61. That is kind of an engineering change they are looking at doing there and some of that comes from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Fink stated both sides of the property have sidewalks. One on the parking lot side and one on the University side. They heard from the neighborhood groups that public sidewalk access is important to them and indeed they want to be able to have public pedestrian circulation from st 61 Street south and back and forth. He is going to discuss with staff the possibility of placing a public sidewalk easement so there is no restriction for neighbor pedestrians to be able to utilize the sidewalk on the property. Mr. Fink stated they are going to be reviewing some fire hydrant quantities and fire hydrant locations on this property. The Fire Department has reviewed their plan and has had some suggestions. As they develop their detail on the wrought iron fence, some of that will be driven as well in terms of access to the fire hydrant from University. th Mr. Fink stated another idea they are exploring that may come forward is the 60 Street th connection. They heard from the neighborhood group they would really like a 60 Street dead end cutoff, no access, from their property. There would be no ingress or egress in or out of this thst property by the use of 60. Access would be restricted to 61 and then again at 57 ½ . He did not promise the neighborhood group any decision on that at their meeting. He stated that is more of a City planning emergency ingress/egress question the City would be comfortable with th it. He could probably live with it either way; however, he did see the advantages of the 60 Street connection. One of the reasons he is proposing to add the right turn lane on their th northerly access point is, in the event the City wishes to continue that 60 Street connection, a th right turn lane would take the pressure off 60 Street by allowing people to go ahead and turn th right. Even if it were to go up to the 4 and come back to get in line to get to University and not thth necessarily need to use the 60 Street all the time to go northbound. If 60 Street remains open, then the City engineering department is talking about coming up with ideas that allow th vehicles such as snowplows to get in and out of that as they operate snow removal on 60. For example, the idea of a roundabout has been discussed right where that “T” intersection is th between the parking lots and 60. In the coming days they will kind of explore that further and see what sort of design works best. They also believe that such a roundabout feature, depending on how it is designed, could also serve to control the speed of traffic north and southbound through the parking lot. They will also introduce speed bumps in the parking lot. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 15 of 22 Mr. Fink stated they are going to concentrate efforts on that sidewalk area between University and the building. It occurs to him they could probably use a little extra width. It is shown as a 6- foot wide sidewalk now, and he is going to see if they can go to a 7-foot sidewalk and introduce bollard lighting along the length of that sidewalk for security and aesthetic purposes. Mr. Fink stated as to the landscaping, he thinks the staff report suggests some specific plantings. Their landscape plan needs to be revised to incorporate many of those landscape specifications, and that will be part of their revised plans that they do. Mr. Fink stated the City engineering department would also like them look at the same issue thth with respect to snowplows on 60 as it might happen on the south end at 57. When they are th still plowing 57 and start to enter onto their private property, what then? Is there a way to turn around, is there signage designation, what is the program for that? They will be working with City engineering and staff to come up with a viable solution there. Mr. Fink stated as to title issues, he received an update today from their surveyor they still do not have any response back from the examiner of titles with respect to the MnDOT turnback, etc. They expect to hear something within the next 10-14 days. They do have a combination of Torrens and abstract properties within this development. They need to decide how to deal with that. Whether they make them all registered title or live with some combination thereof. This property will need to be platted. On the preliminary plat they will have the vacated areas eliminated but will also reestablish new easements for the utilities, drainage, etc. They will also need to address reciprocal cross easements between different phases which will be different platted lots and some joint maintenance agreements. They intend for this property to be all one congruent operating development and intend for it to have all one ownership. It would be nice to say all one lender. However, they have been around the block enough times to know that you cannot predict that will happen. They want to make sure they have flexibility in the development to go forward. Mr. Fink stated they will have the preliminary plat, the final plat which will describe the three separate lots and three separate phases of the development, and then they will have a negotiated agreement with the HRA with respect to buying the land from the HRA and the requirements they will have with respect to the acquisition, and then of course the development agreement with the City. Mr. Fink stated they have read the staff’s report, they have read and understand the 14 stipulations and find them reasonable and acceptable. Vice-Chair Oquist asked, if he understands it, the north building will be constructed first and they are doing it in phases? Mr. Fink replied, correct. Vice-Chair Oquist asked, as to the property that is not developed, will they be maintaining that with grass, etc.? Mr. Fink replied, that will have to be maintained. Part of this is going to be addressed with the agreement they have with the HRA. They have been working with the HRA’s attorney, Jim Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 16 of 22 Casserly and have been looking a variety of questions similar to those, like, what if they do not go to the second phase, what if they do not go to the third phase. Things like that. The option of taking the land back. Vice-Chair Oquist asked will they be buying the property in stages as well from the HRA? In other words, for phase one they will buy that property/land, and then when they go onto phase two, then they will buy that property or are they going to buy the whole thing at one time? Mr. Fink replied, the hard thing about answering that question is they do not have their agreement finalized with the HRA. They have a Letter of Understanding with the HRA to give them the kind of protection they will not sell the property out from under them. However, the details of an acquisition or purchase agreement have not been negotiated yet. He is not saying that would not be the case. Very likely they will end up purchasing the entire eight acres with certain stipulations for timing of the development as it proceeds. Vice-Chair Oquist stated and if they actually just purchased the first phase then the HRA would be responsible to maintain the rest of the property until they came in and did the other phases. Mr. Fink replied, if they own it they will maintain it. Commissioner Saba asked, relative to the green space, the recreation area, that is not included in the first phase. Will there be some green space, any kind of recreational area there for the first phase? That other phase may not be developed for two, three, four years down the line. It would be nice to have some sort of green space there for the other residents. Mr. Fink replied, he agrees. They have not designed or proposed any other outdoor amenity that would be dedicated to the first phase which would then go away when the second phase gets built. Of course there would be all that open land area beyond it but, in respect to Commissioner Saba’s question, he would like to take that idea back to their design team and introduce that idea if there is something they could or should be doing that benefits the first phase. Commissioner Saba stated, yes, it would be nice to have something there. Commissioner Solberg stated he is trying to envision the 7-foot fence and it is intended to be on the entire eastern border of the property. Mr. Fink presented some photographs of fencing products. Commissioner Solberg asked, if it is supposed to be the entire length of the property and there is no access for the residents in the apartment, they are just going to have to walk the entire length? Will there only be a way to get out to the street on the two ends? Mr. Fink replied, the privacy fence is intended to be along the entire eastern property line, it th would break only where 60 Street is, if that remains open, and then it would be continuous to the end of the property. The neighborhood group was quite unanimous about not having any sort of gates or openings and even the slots themselves were to be solid without any opportunity to view through the slots of the fence. However, they did like the decorative top Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 17 of 22 rails. He did suggest that when the fence is installed, it be installed staggered. It runs 40 feet at one length and then steps out or back a couple of feet and then 40 feet and back and forth, back and forth. It gives it a better visual appearance as well as if any of it begins to tip one way or another for whatever reason, it is not as evident when you have it staggered like that. Commissioner Solberg stated he thinks the staggering is a good idea as a long vinyl fence would not be real attractive for the property or the people having to look at it across the street. Mr. Fink stated also the architect introduced the idea of where the fence offsets, there is an opportunity to do some planting and some grass until the next offset. He and staff had a long discussion earlier about the position of that fence and, indeed, the neighborhood is very curious as to if the fence will be on their property, some on the neighbors, how does that really get placed? That is another question they will work out with staff to determine what is best. In general it is safe to say it will be on the property line except for where it staggers, it will probably come back onto our property and then back to the property line. Commissioner Solberg stated also he likes Mr. Fink’s observations about the color choices of the exterior of the building. While it is a very contemporary look and he thinks it looks nice, he does not know how well it blends to the existing area. Also, he is glad Mr. Fink talked about that horizontal look because it looked like the one material was like wood or something that is going to be metallic or something. He asked whether there is going to be any use of brick? What he kind of worries about are materials that are going to fray, peel, look shabby 6 to 10 years down the line. Mr. Fink stated when they saw the submitted exterior rendition from their architect it was at such a late date to the planning commission submittal deadline, and they did not have an opportunity to go back and say, wait, we are not sure we love these colors. They basically had to grab it and go. He presented samples of the EFIS product. It is a very durable exterior finish. They looked at some blues, some darker colors, and some terra cotta. They can soften up the red and there are several different shades of beige instead of the white. Mr. Fink stated they also concentrated their discussion about what he calls the ground level, the wainscoting from the grass on up where you get irrigation spray, grass, lawnmowers, and to protect. They are talking about using some sort of stone, cultured stone, or masonry type look that would complement the rest of the build but be even more durable. That sample product he brought along is similar to what they may end up selecting. That particular product happens to be milled from actual stone, cut, and ready for installation. They also have a product that is a cultured stone which is just as durable and a different price line. They see that happening on the foundation level of the building. Commissioner Solberg stated he likes that, it’s a nice touch. Also, in terms of the things they are offering for the price point they have and the income level gives him a little more comfort in terms of bringing in a very nice structure with good things to offer for the folks that will be living there. It is something that is going to benefit Fridley in terms of elevating that look along that corridor. He likes the fact they are willing to meet and listen to the concerns of the neighborhood as well. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 18 of 22 Commissioner Velin asked whether any of the units will be for sale or is this strictly rental property? Mr. Fink replied, strictly rental. Mr. Hickok stated as to building materials on site during construction and this is unsolicited by the developer but he will tell the Commission that the City’s building official said that when this developer’s company built the building at Mississippi and Old Central, it was the cleanest building site they had seen for residential structure ever. The building official was very complimentary about every time he visited that site on how clean and organized it was. Muriel Sharpe, 5924 Fifth Street NE, stated she is very pleased they are going to do an ornamental fence along University Avenue. She understands why some of the neighbors may th have really emphasized the need to close 60 Avenue at that point because she knows what it st is like to get out onto 61, particularly in picking up kids from middle school, it can be a real thst headache. She can see that people will take the shortcut out of the development, up 60 to 61 Avenue, and try and go off from there because it is going to be another avenue. With this development bringing in 200 or more cars in area, it could bring a lot of traffic through their neighborhood which is a quiet residential area with kids, etc. Ms. Sharpe stated when Ms. Stromberg told her this is the company that built Landmark, she drove by it yesterday and today and looked at it and she could live with that. It is real tasteful, real appropriate for their community. The look of the proposed development is very urban, and she does not think of Fridley as being an urban community. She likes its suburban status. It is kind of offputting when it is just going straight across. The look of the building now to her looks like an institution, a hospital, or a company rather than a residential building. Also, when you start to do more than two kinds of surfaces, it gets a little busy looking. As to stucco, they have apartment buildings in Fridley that have stucco from the 1950’s, and she does not think the urban look with the stucco is a good combination. Kurt Swanson , 6010 Fifth Street NE, stated regarding the long white fence not being very appealing. He does know for a fact the vinyl comes in various colors and maybe a toned down color such as a tan or a green might be an option the neighbors would appreciate that would make it not so stark. Commissioner Sielaff asked about the snow removal. They are talking about a pretty long parking lot area here. Where is all the snow going to go? Mr. Fink replied, they believe that the central park area they have designed as green space will be adequate to accommodate quite a bit of snow storage. The exact volume of that he does not know yet. They would also say that if it is insufficient to accommodate all the snow storage they need, they are prepared to truck it offsite. th Vice-Chair Oquist asked, regarding 60Avenue, if that were to be closed down, then do we have to turn that into a cul de sac so that the emergency vehicles can have access because th there is one property that is on the southwest corner that has their garage facing 60. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 19 of 22 Mr. Hickok replied, those details are being worked out. If that stub street were to stay but to be closed to this development, yes, there would have to be a way of getting the truck turned around for snow plowing, etc. That is where the engineers and the developer have been looking at the roundabout as one possibility. Also, it would allow the truck to go around that, come back out, and take care of the maintenance on that short segment of street. An alternative like that would need to be considered because that short stub street would be a difficult one to get a truck turned around on otherwise. Vice-Chair Oquist stated it is almost like they would move that garage and then just shut down the whole street, but they would not want to do that. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to close the public hearings on Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CLOSED AT 8:42 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving a Street and Alley Vacation, SAV #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC and the City of Fridley's Housing and Redevelopment Authority, to allow for the redevelopment of the Gateway NE properties, which are generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. The street proposed to be vacated is a portion of 60th Avenue NE from the University Avenue Service Drive to the alley on the east side of the subject parcels. The alley proposed to be vacated is located to the east of the subject parcels and south of vacated 59th Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg approving an S-2, Redevelopment District Master Plan, MP #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC, to allow for the development of the Gateway NE properties, with the construction of three (3) new multi-family residential buildings, generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the master site plan, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 2. The building shall be developed in accordance with the architectural exterior elevations sheets, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The petitioner shall ensure that the any signage meet code requirements and shall obtain a separate sign permit prior to installation. 6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 20 of 22 7. A buffer between the residential properties to the east and the proposed project, through the use of a fence, landscaping or a combination of both shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall install said buffer at the same time Building #1 is constructed. 8. Replacement of chain link fence along the Mn/DOT right-of-way will be incorporated as part of this project. The fence design and installation shall be agreed upon and approved by Mn/DOT, the City’s HRA, the City and the Developer and said agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. 9. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. All lighting in the development shall be shielded and downcast. Lighting shall be provided through free-standing lighting that adequately illuminates the sidewalk. 12. All crosswalks shall be installed using a colorized pavement pattern when connecting the sidewalk on each side of a driveway. All connections shall be accessible. 13. If the square footage of the footprint of any of the buildings proposed changes by more than 10 percent at that phase of the development, an S-2 master plan and TOD master plan amendment shall be required. 14. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer’s obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Velin approving a Transit Oriented District (TOD) Master Plan, TOD #14-01, by Trident Development, LLC, to allow for the development of the Gateway NE properties, with the construction of three (3) new multi-family residential buildings, generally located along the University Avenue Service Drive, east of University Avenue NE, from 58th Avenue NE to 61st Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of properties involved in the project are on file at Fridley City Hall with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the master site plan, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 2. The building shall be developed in accordance with the architectural exterior elevations sheets, submitted by hma Architects, dated _______. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The petitioner shall ensure that the any signage meet code requirements and shall obtain a separate sign permit prior to installation. 6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7. A buffer between the residential properties to the east and the proposed project, through the use of a fence, landscaping or a combination of both shall be Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 21 of 22 reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall install said buffer at the same time Building #1 is constructed. 8. Replacement of chain link fence along the Mn/DOT right-of-way will be incorporated as part of this project. The fence design and installation shall be agreed upon and approved by Mn/DOT, the City’s HRA, the City and the Developer and said agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. 9. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. All lighting in the development shall be shielded and downcast. Lighting shall be provided through free-standing lighting that adequately illuminates the sidewalk. 12. All crosswalks shall be installed using a colorized pavement pattern when connecting the sidewalk on each side of a driveway. All connections shall be accessible. 13. If the square footage of the footprint of any of the buildings proposed changes by more than 10 percent at that phase of the development, an S-2 master plan and TOD master plan amendment shall be required. 14. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer’s obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to issuance of a building permit for Building #1. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the Minutes of the December 5, 2013, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated that she just found out this morning that we will have a new representative from the Environmental Energy and Quality Commission starting next month. So, she would like to thank Jack Velin for his years of service to the Planning Commission and wish him well. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Solberg adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Saba Planning Commission January 15, 2014 Page 22 of 22 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIR OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary