Loading...
08-11-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 11, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes June 23, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 23, 2008 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - Z012-16 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road Purpose: To make the zoning designation consistent with the General Land Use Plan map designation Grimes referred to a location map and explained that this is a proposal to rezone 5.6 acres on the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to the R-4 High Density Residential zoning district in order to make it consistent with the current General Land Use Plan map. He stated that the properties are currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and R-3 Medium Density Residential. Grimes explained that in 1999 the City adopted the current General Land Use Plan which designated these properties high density. Since that time staff has not recommended rezoning the properties even though state statute requires that zoning maps and general land use plan maps be consistent. He explained that staff is now recommending these properties be rezoned because there has been a request to construct 175 units of housing which is approximately 30 units per acre. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this rezoning because it is consistent with the General Land Use Plan map dating back to 1999. Kluchka asked why the City is proposing this rezoning now. Grimes stated that the City is proposing this rezoning now because United Properties is proposing to build 175 units of senior housing and the City's General Land Use Plan map and Zoning map have to match. He stated that this rezoning probably should have been done sooner. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 2 Schmidgall asked if it would be an option to make the General Land Use Plan map match the Zoning map instead of the other way around. Grimes stated that the City Council has the right to change the General Land Use Plan map how they want. The current policy of the City as shown on the General Land Use Plan map is high density residential. Within the past year, the Planning Commission has suggested as part of the Comprehensive Plan update that these properties remain designated high density because this is a logical location for higher density development in Golden Valley. Keysser opened the public hearing. Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she is appalled and angry that she is even at this meeting. She said she is amazed that the Planning Commission hasn't heard of global warming because removing the trees from these properties amounts to deforestation. She said this shows the ignorance of governing bodies and asked what the sense is in using this property for someone's monetary gain. Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said the notification process for this meeting was very lax and the only way she found out about it was from a neighbor who said this proposal was already a done deal. She referred to the housing stock in the area and said "the GV Ghetto" is at the top of the hill and the rest of the area is small starter family homes with the majority being long time, highly-educated residents. She expressed concern over the size of the proposed buildings because four-story buildings will tower over the neighborhood. She said her other concerns include ambulances constantly driving by and the loss of green space and trees located on these properties. She said she is worried that this area will change too much and the City needs to consider the impact on the neighborhood because she is afraid it won't be community friendly. She said she would like the proposal to include a park or an area open to the public. She questioned the impacts to the creek and questioned what type of residents the proposed senior housing would have including violent people or people with dementia. She said she would be happy if a smaller assisted living home were built but the City needs to consider the impact to the smaller single family homes in the area. Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road, said he is concerned that a four-story building will be aesthetically displeasing. He is also concerned about what the building will look like and how higher density will affect the traffic. He said this proposal will cause a lot of change and it may be difficult getting on and off Golden Valley Road during the construction. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, said she did not receive a hearing notice for this meeting or for the meeting held by the applicant last Wednesday. She said at the applicant's meeting they were told that the Comprehensive Plan is calling for high density on these properties and that is what the City wants. She said she doesn't see how the City can pre-approve things without getting citizen input. She said she was also told by the applicant that they will not make any money from the 74-unit co-op building. She said that the proposed buildings will be too dense and questioned how many acres the project includes. Keysser stated that the project will be on 4.7 acres. Burrets expressed concern about how many people would be allowed to live on an acre. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11,2008 Page 3 Grimes explained that the R-4 zoning district allows housing in buildings up to 8 stories or 96 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He said in terms of density generally 30 to 35 units per acre is considered to be pretty high density. He referred to the Calvary apartments and co-op property and stated that that has approximately 35 to 40 units per acre and is 10 or 11 stories in height and is the tallest development in Golden Valley. Burrets questioned why the applicant wouldn't just build a little bit bigger assisted living building and forget about the co-op building if they are not going to make any money from it anyway. She stated people are very unhappy and this is disturbing their lives. She added that it isn't that people don't want this type of use it's the size, scope, height and design that are the issues. She said the City should be looking for something other than assisted living buildings. They should be providing affordable housing for young people to move into this neighborhood. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agreed that there is a problem with the notification process and she spent hours distributing literature up and down Golden Valley Road. She said she doesn't object to the proposed use and she would prefer assisted living or senior housing versus another apartment building. She said this is going to be the highest density area in Golden Valley and questioned how the City wanted the area to look. She said it sounds to her like the Planning Commissioners don't even agree on the amount of density that should be in this area. She stated that the City has made promises with the Envision study, adopting the "Kyoto Protocol" and the new Douglas Drive Corridor Study and she is going to hold the City to these promises. She said she is nervous that this property will become low income housing 10 years from now if this project doesn't succeed. She questioned if other senior housing properties are at capacity and stated that the design of the proposed new buildings looks very institutional and they will tower over the neighborhood. She asked that the applicant work with the neighborhood regarding landscaping and open space and said there are a lot of opportunities to be creative and unique. She said residential properties have a big impact on the environment and she is concerned about storm water issues and landscape maintenance and fertilizers being used so close to the creek. She said she is also concerned about the traffic and hearing loud ambulance sirens all day long. She urged the City to listen to both sides. Roxanne Sienko, 5800 Golden Valley Road, said she is opposed to rezoning this area. She stated that 14 years ago Covenant Manor approached her because they wanted to expand. She said they were not interested in her family, they only wanted money. She suggested building nice single family homes and stated that the proposed project will change the neighborhood and the tall buildings won't fit in with the rest of the area. Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, said she loves this area and what the City is doing is uncalled for. She said the gorgeous trees will be gone and she can't understand with all of the senior housing in the area why they need more. She asked why this project isn't being built where the Douglas Drive Apartments or the Copacabana Apartments are located because there is a lot of crime in those areas. She said she's been told that the older people who would be living in the proposed new buildings won't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 4 drive and that is "baloney". She said the City is really asking for problems and referred to all the buildings that are for currently for lease. She said the proposed buildings are too high and will block the sun and wreck the view. She asked why this corner and why this is a "cut and dry" deal. She added that if the Planning Commission wants to beautify Golden Valley they should do it with something else. Jeanne Nyatz, 1350 Douglas Drive, said she lives in the condominium building to the north and will look directly at the proposed buildings. She said she thinks the project is well planned and will be meticulously maintained and beautifully landscaped. She stated that she has never had a problem getting in and out her driveway on Douglas Drive and she doesn't think that the density of the proposed new buildings will be a problem. Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, suggested that people in the neighborhood sit through another presentation by United Properties because everyone that has spoken at this meeting has been misinformed and is misrepresenting the proposal. He stated that United Properties is a local company which has been around for 89 years and this is their sixth or seventh similar proposal. They are not coming from out of town and pillaging Golden Valley. He said they will be a good neighbor and a good addition to the area and he is in support of this proposal if they follow all of the City's guidelines. He questioned if rezoning these properties is just fixing a technicality on the zoning map. Keysser explained that the City's General Land Use Plan map has been designated high density for at least the last nine years. In order to make the Zoning map consistent with the existing General Land Use Plan map these properties need to be rezoned to the High Density Residential R-4 zoning district. Lager asked about the current Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission has recommended, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, keeping these properties designated high density. Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said she wants to reiterate that she is not against the proposal and suggested that a mass mailing be done to a 10-block radius and that the Planning Commission consider tabling this proposal. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, referred to Mr. Lager's comment that there has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding this proposal and said she wants to know what has been misunderstood or misrepresented. Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, stated that he assumes the notification process followed all of the requirements. Grimes explained that the City of Golden Valley mails hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet. He added that the state statute requires hearing notices be mailed to property owners within 250 feet. Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she doesn't believe there has been any misrepresentation; people are just expressing their opinions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 5 Mary Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, said she drives by this area constantly and if something is going to be done it should be done tastefully because it impacts a lot of people in Golden Valley. She said from what she has heard this project is not well planned. They are going to come in, build, then leave because it is business to them. She said she is concerned about the loss of trees and added that there has to be a way to fit the architecture into the land. Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road suggested the developers build green roofs in order to release oxygen and save money on heating costs. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser clarified that this proposed project is not a "done deal" until the City Council makes their decision. He also clarified that the City is not the developer of this proposed project so it is not up to the City to tell the developer to build single family homes versus the proposed senior housing. Kluchka stated that the zoning map says the property is zoned R-3, but Grimes' memo says R-4 and asked for clarification. Grimes stated that the properties are currently zoned R-1 and R-3, and the proposal is to rezone them to R-4. Kluchka said he is concerned about going from R-3 to R-4. Grimes explained that the R-3 zoning district allows for townhomes and multi-family buildings if they are 12 units or less per acre. The R-4 zoning district is for multi-family buildings with 12 or more units per acre. He stated that the City needed to create a zoning district to match the density requirements on the General Land Use Plan map because the two maps were not consistent. Keysser asked if the property is rezoned to R-4 High Density Residential and the proposed project doesn't happen if the property would remain R-4. Grimes reiterated that the General Land Use Plan map shows these properties should be high density housing. He explained that if the Planning Commission and the City Council believe that the properties should not be used for high density then the General Land Use Plan map needs to be changed because the High Density designation is the current policy of the City. Waldhauser asked about the density of the condominiums to the north. Grimes said there are approximately 50 units in the condominium which is approximately 25 to 30 units per acre in density. Schmidgall stated that the City wasn't thinking when it designated these properties high density on the General Land Use Plan map because he can't imagine a 96-foot tall building in this location. He said he thinks medium density would be better in this location particularly because the zoning to the west is R-1 Single Family. He said it looks like this proposal is being squeezed on to these properties and he thinks the General Land Use Plan map needs to be corrected not the Zoning map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 6 McCarty said he is concerned that if this property is rezoned to R-4 and this project doesn't go through then someone could build a 96-foot tall building. He suggested reconsidering the General Land Use Plan map designation. Eck said the issue to consider is if R-4 is appropriate in this location because if the land use is changed to R-3 it would shoot this project down. Kluchka questioned if rezoning the properties to R-3 would make the apartments "not developable" . Eck stated that if the property is rezoned to R~4 it doesn't necessarily mean that a much taller or higher density project would be approved. Keysser questioned how a project could be denied if it were to meet all the zoning code requirements. Grimes explained that a PUD Permit requires a developer to stick to an approved plan. Cera asked if the PUD stays with the land. Grimes said yes and explained that if a developer in the future wanted to change an approved PUD Permit the City would have to rescind or amend the existing PUD Permit. Keysser asked for clarification that if someone in the future wanted to build something higher or something different they would have to amend the PUD. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall noted that the properties north of the creek are in the same situation. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties north of the creek are considered non-conforming and if the apartments to the north are re-developed they will more than likely be higher density because of the facts of the economy. Cera asked if the City could approve the rezoning request, but deny the PUD request. Grimes reiterated that the City Council has designated this area high density. If the Planning Commission doesn't agree that this area should be high density they could table the rezoning request and ask the City Council to reconsider the comprehensive plan designation. He stated that Golden Valley is currently 70% single family homes. The City has looked far and wide in Golden Valley for areas that could be designated higher density because the Planning Commission and City Council felt there needed to be areas designated for higher density uses and it was felt that this was a good area for higher density development. Waldhauser said they need to look at the City and see if there is a better location for this type of development and she doesn't think there is. Keysser said he is comfortable with rezoning the property knowing the City has the PUD process for protection. McCarty said he is curious as to what the Douglas Drive Corridor study will find because this project will set the tone for the rest of the corridor if this project goes forward. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11,2008 Page 7 Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee has looked at maps to see if change was wanted or not. Hogeboom added that the consensus of the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee was to change these properties to high density. Kluchka said this is one of the better places the City has to do this type of development and he is inclined to support the rezoning. However, he is concerned about traffic because nobody yields at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive, which needs to be thought about as a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor study. He said they also need to address traffic and impacts to the area. Cera said he agrees that there is a need for higher density housing. Eck said this is a NIMBY issue and it is fair to say that higher density housing like this is never desirable for the neighbors living in the area. He said he wants to be sensitive to the neighbor's feelings but if the City was totally sensitive there would never be any change. Waldhauser said she supports the rezoning request with some reservations. She said Golden Valley needs more senior housing opportunities and this project is an attractive option for seniors. McCarty said he understands that Golden Valley needs higher density but he is concerned that if these properties were rezoned, someone could propose at 96-foot tall building and if it meets all of the zoning code requirements they wouldn't need a PUD. Kluchka asked if there is any way to place some type of overlay or control on future development. Grimes said he doesn't think so. He explained that if the concern is the height of the structures then the Planning Commission could consider changing the Zoning Code requirements. He added that if the City holds off on the rezoning of the properties until the Final PUD procedure it would hold the zoning of the land in the state it is in currently. Kluchka said he doesn't want to playa procedural game he would like something more like an overlay. Schmidgall said he would like to rezone the properties to R-3 Medium Density Residential, not R-4 High Density Residential. He said he would rather have a developer beg the City to be allowed to build taller than have the City beg a developer to build something shorter. McCarty asked if the rezoning and PUD are approved and the developer decides not to build this project what the limitations are to the next developer. Grimes stated that the City Council can eliminate or rescind a PUD and go back to what the property is zoned and a future developer would probably have to replat the properties or a PUD can be amended to allow for something else. He reiterated that the PUD takes the plans submitted and holds the developer to them. He stated that from a staff perspective this proposal is consistent with what the City is calling for. He referred to the City's housing plan and noted that it also calls for providing an alternate form of housing. He stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 8 other cities have built this type of product and have proved that this type of housing causes turnover and frees up single family homes for younger families to purchase. Waldhauser said the thinks the City should be looking at all the properties at the same time and needs to be thinking about the whole area. Grimes reiterated that state law requires that General Land Use Plan maps and Zoning maps are consistent with each other. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend rezoning the following properties from their current zoning designation to the R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Schmidgall voted no. . 1100,1170,1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North from R-1 Single Family Zoning District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District . 6200 and 6212 Golden Valley Road from R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - Planned Unit Development - Applewood Pointe - PUD 106 Applicant: United Properties Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative building and 4-story, 105-unit assisted living building. Grimes referred to a location map and stated that the properties involved in this request are located at the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and are the same properties involved in the previous rezoning request. He stated that United Properties is proposing to build two buildings on these properties and create one lot for each building. One will be a 74-unit senior cooperative housing building and the other will be a 1 05-unit assisted living building. The proposed buildings will be three and four stories in height. He stated that the City Engineer and Hennepin County have reviewed this proposal extensively and Hennepin County has said they do not want access to the site from Douglas Drive. Therefore there will only be one access located on Golden Valley Road. He said he feels comfortable with only one access because of the population of the buildings. He stated that both buildings will have underground and surface parking and that the amount of parking provided exceeds the City's parking requirements. He stated that one of staff's concerns was the additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Douglas Drive that the County is requesting to accommodate future road changes, turn lanes or sidewalks. He stated that United Properties is providing additional sidewalks and is improving sidewalk connections as a part of their proposal. He referred to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 9 issue of height and explained that the City measures height from grade to the mid-point of the highest gable so the proposed buildings will be from 46 feet to 56 feet in height. He stated that previous speakers brought up the issue of "green" development and suggested the developer discuss their plans. However, regarding storm water management they have gone above and beyond the City's requirements. He stated that the City will be requiring maintenance agreements for the ponds and for the pervious pavers they are proposing. The applicant will also be required to do a tree preservation plan. He referred to the site plan and discussed a small triangular area to the north of their property. He explained that United Properties is in negotiations with the condominium property to north to obtain that triangular property. Without obtaining that piece of property the proposal will not be allowed to go forward with their final PUD approval. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the comments from the City Engineer, the Deputy Fire Marshall and the applicant obtaining the small triangular property to the north. McCarty noted that the setback along Douglas Drive is 18 feet and questioned if that would require a variance. Grimes stated that variances are not issued as a part of the PUD process and that the plans that are submitted and approved is what gets built. Grimes added that the County is also asking for a 10-foot easement for trails. Kluchka asked if the easement would affect the setback. Grimes said no. The setback is determined from the official right-of-way for the street. Schmidgall asked if the buildings are actually five stories in height with the parking underneath. Grimes said the parking is below grade and reiterated that the heightof the buildings is approximately 56 feet. Alex Hall, United Properties, Applicant, talked about the background and history of United Properties. He stated that they got into the senior housing market approximately six years ago and they have built five co-ops throughout the metro area. He said he understands the neighbor's concerns and added that he has had a neighborhood meeting and has invited the neighborhood to go to another one of their sites and see the landscaping and talk to the people who live there. Hall said it is his intent to follow the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for higher density residential and based on that, they acquired the properties because they feel their plan will work well on this corner. He referred to the 3-story condominium building to the north and stated that their proposed new buildings will be less than 10 feet taller than that so these new buildings will not tower above the other buildings in the area. He referred to the comment that was made about not needing the co-op building and clarified that they do need the density of both buildings to make the project work, however the assisted living building will probably be more profitable. He referred to a site plan and stated that there will be one enclosed parking space per unit for the co-op building and the co-op building is "for sale" housing, not rentals. Hall referred to the concern expressed regarding traffic and stated that the use they are proposing is one of the lower traffic generating uses that can be found. He stated that they have done traffic studies in other cities where they have similar projects. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 10 Hall showed a rendering of what the proposed buildings will look like and explained that the colors shown are not the final color choices. He stated that their buildings use a variety of materials such as stucco, Hardie Board siding and stone. He said they welcome the neighbors input on colors and materials. Keysser asked about the roof materials. Hall stated that the roofs will be a dark color, asphalt shingle. Keysser asked about the co-op prices. Hall said the co-op units will sell for approximately $185 per square foot. Keysser asked why they are proposing co-ops instead of condominiums. Hall stated that there is a financial advantage for a co-op buyer because a co-op has a master mortgage, not individual mortgages like a condominium. He explained that co-op documents are set up to give residents a say in how the property is run. He stated that they don't just construct the buildings and leave; they manage their own properties with an on-site housing manager and they also have several boards and committees which are not often found in condominiums. Hall referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and discussed the housing forecasts which show that the 65+ age group is the fastest growing age group so they are building a product that is needed now and in the future. He added that by people moving into these types of communities it frees up single-family houses for younger families. Hall again referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding blighted properties and stated that they have had a blight analysis done and 3 out of the 5 properties in this proposal meet the standard for blighted properties in the tax increment financing standards. He said what they are proposing will be an improvement to the City and reiterated that their proposal meets the objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked Hall about the size of their Bloomington location. Hall said the Bloomington site has 95 units on approximately 3 acres. Keysser asked how the Bloomington units sold. Hall said all of the units were sold before they were done with construction and there is now a waiting list. Kluchka asked how the neighborhood concerns were mitigated in Bloomington. Hall said he wasn't involved in the Bloomington project but he has been involved in the Roseville project where they created a buffer of "machine moved" pine trees between their project and neighboring single-family homes. Kevin Teppen, MFRA, Engineer for the project, stated that they want to be as "green" as they possibly can and save as many trees as possible. He referred to a site plan and discussed which trees will remain, which trees will be transplanted and which trees will be removed. He stated that there will be permeable pavers in the courtyard and rock infiltration basins in addition to the heavy landscaping being proposed. Keysser asked if there will be a LEED designation on this project. Hall said no because it is very difficult to get LEED certification on residential property. He stated that they will have a central boiler to increase efficiency in the assisted living building and that these proposed units will be more energy efficient than a single-family home. Kluchka asked if there are plans to install bike racks. Hall stated that all of their buildings have several bike racks in the garage level. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 11 Keysser asked about the location of the nearest bus stop. Grimes said there is a bus stop located across the street. Eck asked if the residents would be able to purchase an additional parking space if they would like. Hall said not in the co-op building because there will be one parking space per unit but there could possibly be spaces available to rent in the assisted living building. Keysser asked about the percentage of single people versus couples. Hall said approximately 50% will be couples. Kluchka asked Hall to address the approachability of the entrances. Hall referred to the site plan and stated that the main entrances are on the interior of the courtyard. He said there will be rear entrances in the back of the assisted living building and that all entrances will have card access or key fob access. He added that they will also be installing benches near the creek. Kluchka explained that in previous proposals the Planning Commission has discussed buildings that don't look approachable. He said he wants to have an entrance or face in the neighborhood. Teppen stated that there will be a pedestrian gateway along Douglas Drive with a central courtyard to welcome people in. Keysser stated that the previous discussions the Planning Commission had were in regard to office space. He said he feels this proposal is different because it is residential and therefore more private. Kluchka said he understands that, but he doesn't want the buildings to have a "faux Craftsman look" or a large flat wall that looks like an institution because this is a gateway intersection and he's afraid it doesn't say "Golden Valley" and it won't be appealing. He asked if there is a way to make it look more approachable to people driving by. Hall showed an elevation drawing of the buildings and discussed the stone and entrance focal point. Kluchka stated that this is a significant mass of a building and he is trying to look for ways the building can be kind to the environment and feel approachable and give an impression that this is somewhere someone would want to live. Keysser said he thinks the trees will help with the massing feel. Hall stated that they turned the east end of the assisted living building to help not have such a long expanse of wall along Golden Valley Road. McCarty said he agrees that there is a lot of building along Golden Valley Road. Waldhauser suggested that instead of having so much open space with parking in the center they consider moving the parking to the outside of the building and camouflaging it, then the building wouldn't be so close to the street. Hall stated that with that configuration they would lose density and they would have to have a T-shaped building. He said that they did consider turning the buildings and that this project as gone through several versions before the one being proposed. Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive side of the buildings looks good to him and questioned if anything could be done along the Golden Valley Road side to help break-up the fayade along the street. Hall stated that could have bump-outs in the fayade along Golden Valley Road. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11,2008 Page 12 Fariborz Afsharjavan, JSSH Architects, Architect for the project, stated that some of the issues with the buildings have to do with the setback requirements, the density and the parking requirements. He said the buildings are broken up as much as possible and the site doesn't allow them to do anything differently. He said they are breaking up the fayade with the materials they are using. He added that the end user is going to drive the look of this project because people living in these units don't want to look at cars on Douglas Drive or Golden Valley Road. He referred to the entrance and discussed how it will be a visible focal point. Keysser opened the public hearing. John Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, asked if the City is subsidizing or deferring taxes to aid this project in any way. Grimes stated that the applicant has requested Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Hall added that they have had preliminary discussions with the City regarding TIF but nothing has been finalized. Paulson said he not opposed to the development if they pay for it themselves. He said he doesn't want to pay taxes to assist someone in constructing another building and taxpayers shouldn't have to support this project. Grimes said that the issue of TIF is an HRA and City Council issue. The details of that are separate from the land use issues they are discussing at this meeting. Kluchka asked how TIF is being used. Grimes stated it will be used to write down the cost of the land. Kluchka asked about the TIF process. Grimes said there will be a development plan for the area and he believes the Planning Commission will review it. Keysser clarified that TIF is paid by the property owner, not by taxpayers. Paulson said he doesn't believe in subsidies because it is not the American way to do business. Roxanne Sienko, 5800 Golden Valley Road, asked how tall the buildings are from the bottom of the building to the top. Hall said the buildings are approximately 57 to 58 feet in height. Sienko said she thinks a 60-foot high building would be considered a six story building. She said she wants to know if these buildings are four or six story buildings. Grimes explained that the City measures height from grade to the middle of the highest gable. Sienko stated that the existing apartment building is a three story building. Grimes stated that story heights are greater today than when the apartments were built and there is also more space between the floors. Sienko asked if she will only see one more story on the proposed new buildings compared to the apartments that are there now. Kluchka stated that these new buildings have a slightly steeper gable so essentially it will look like another story visually. Hall added that the proposed new buildings will be approximately 10 feet higher than the condominium building to the north. Sienko asked how many feet there will be from the curb to the edge of the building. Grimes said there will be 43 feet from the curb to the building. Sienko asked if between the building and the curb there will be trees, sidewalk and grass. Grimes said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 13 Sienko asked why they are proposing so much parking if all the spots are not needed. She suggested they put in more green space instead. Kluchka said it is a matter of use versus capacity. Hall stated that visitors won't have access to the underground garage spaces. He explained that they could probably get rid of half of the underground parking under the assisted living building but it is not cost effective to dig out only half of the underground area. He said he does feel that they will need all of the surface parking. Sienko said her concern is the increased traffic on Golden Valley Road. She said she has concerns about people passing each other on Golden Valley Road when they have to slow down for their driveways. She stated that Golden Valley Road was just replaced last year and now it will look like it did before it was replaced. She said she also thinks that a 59-foot tall building is a big building. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agrees with the comment made about having a "faux Craftsman" look along Golden Valley Road and that even the architect said he is not a fan of the massive look. She asked if the City wants the buildings to look like they are proposing just to meet the applicant's needs. She said the aesthetics are her biggest concern and the four story portions of the buildings will largely overshadow the three story portions. She said traffic is also a major concern and she is concerned about what could be built at this location if this plan doesn't go through. She asked if a PUD includes just the building plans or if it includes the trees too. Grimes stated that the PUD plans include a landscaping plan that is typically in effect for two growing seasons. Hoschka asked if trees die would they have to be replaced. Grimes said the applicant will be required to have a tree preservation plan. Hoschka asked if the applicant has considered using geothermal heating and cooling. Hall said no. Hoschka asked if a maintenance agreement will be required for the pervious pavers they are proposing. Grimes said yes. Hoschka asked if the proposed ponding was considered pervious or impervious. Kluchka said the ponds are considered pervious. Hoschka said ponds are impervious. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, expressed concern that there is only one entrance and exit for the number of cars coming in and out. She asked where deliveries will be made and said she hopes it's not on Golden Valley Road. Keysser reiterated that the County will not allow access on Douglas Drive. Burrets said the driveway on Golden Valley Road is going to be dangerous and asked how far away the entrance is from the bridge. Kluchka said the bridge is about 20 feet away from the entrance. Teppen, stated that the distance from the entrance to the driveway was an issue discussed with the City Engineer and the Deputy Fire Marshal, also with the County. Burrets stated that Hall had said they were considering moving the entrance further to the west. Hall said they are still considering that. Burrets stated that people on Golden Valley Road go 35 to 40 miles per hour and there is not enough space for a person to stop. She said a project this size is not appropriate with one entrance and it is something that needs to be thought about. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 14 Burrets asked how the property is going to be lit. Hall said they would follow the City's lighting ordinance requirements. Burrets said she is surprised this property is as expensive as it is considering the blight. She asked how the taxes are figured on co-ops versus condos and how it compares to her house. Keysser stated that the co-op building pays the taxes versus the individuals. Grimes added that the City has no say in a building becoming a condo or a co-op. Hall stated that cities assess co-ops similar to apartment buildings. Burrets said she thinks this project is huge for the size of property it is on and it will be overbuilt. Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, asked if Golden Valley Road is torn up who pays to fix it, the developer or the people who live on Golden Valley Road. Grimes explained that the City policy is if a street is less than 5 years old the developer has to make it new again. He said the City has the same concern because it does not want its new streets torn up and not fixed. Laulainen said this project is more work and trouble for everyone. Grimes stated that the City can't stop development for 5 years because a street is new. Hoschka stated she is not opposed to the project she just wants to be involved in the aesthetics of it. Hall stated that he strongly believes based on past traffic studies that the traffic generated from the proposed four stories of senior housing will be less than the numbers for a less dense, non-senior project. Grimes said the City does know that senior developments produce less peak-hour trips. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he would very much like to see this project built but he thinks it is too big for this site. Keysser said he supports this project because there is clearly a need for it. Cera said he supports the proposal as well especially since it opens up single family homes for new buyers and it is close to a bus line. Kluchka said he wants to see the design better suit the site and he wants to see better traffic safety at that intersection. He said he is concerned about the safety of the entrance and the yield sign and crosswalk at that intersection. He said he wants conditions of approval that require the building along Golden Valley Road to articulate and because of the lack of articulation he is going to vote no. Grimes said he can get more traffic and safety information from the City's consulting traffic engineer. He said the City also has concerns about the safety of that intersection and it will also a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 15 McCarty said he agrees that Golden Valley needs this type of project but he is also concerned about the traffic and long stretch of building along Golden Valley Road so he is not inclined to support this proposal. Keysser suggested they add a condition to their approval that the building fayade along Golden Valley Road must articulate. Kluchka said his preference would be to table the request. McCarty said he would rather see one building be taller and set back further from Golden Valley Road than have the long fayade right along Golden Valley Road. Eck said his initial reaction was that this is a lot of building for this site but there are groups of apartment buildings all over Golden Valley that seem to manage traffic coming in and out of them. He said he is inclined to support the project. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of a PUD at the Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative building and 4-story, 1 05-unit assisted living building with the following conditions. Kluchka, McCarty and Schmidgall voted no. 1. The "Preliminary Site Development Plans for Applewood Pointe" prepared by MFRA Associates and dated 7/25/08 shall become a part of this approval. These plans consist of Sheets C-1.01, 2.01, 3.01, 3.02,4.01,4.02,4.03, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, 6.01, 8.01,9.01,9.02, and 10.01. 2. The preliminary architectural plans for Applewood Pointe of Golden Valley prepared by JSSH Architects and dated 5/09/08 shall become a part of this approval. These plans consist of Cooperative Sheets CS, A 1.1, A2.0, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4, A2.5, A2.6, A2.7, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, A4.1, A4.2, A4.3, A4.4, Assisted Living Sheets A2.1, A2.2, A4.1, and A4.2. 3. The recommendations and findings made by City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated July 30, 2008 shall become a part of this approval. 4. The recommendations and findings made by Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated July 21, 2008 shall become a part of this approval. 5. Prior to approval of the final plan of development by the City Council, title to the triangular piece of property now owned by the condominium association north of Bassett Creek shall be in the ownership of Applewood Pointe. 6. The applicant shall show some alternate designs regarding the fayade of the assisted living building along Golden Valley Road. 7. The City's consulting traffic engineer shall address the issues related to the traffic concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 16 4. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Teacher Federal Credit Union - 601 Boone Avenue North - CU-123 Applicant: Teacher Federal Credit Union Address: 601 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union building with 4 drive-through lanes in the Commercial Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-through lanes. Grimes stated that the applicant, Teacher Federal Credit Union would like to move from their existing location in Golden Valley to this new location at 601 Boone Avenue North. He explained that the applicant would like to tear down the existing gas station building and construct a new 7,700 square foot credit union building with four drive-through lanes. A Conditional Use Permit is required in this case because of the drive-through lanes. Keysser asked what the applicant is planning to do with the building they are currently in. Grimes said he didn't know. Dan Lieberthal, Vice President Real Estate, Teacher Federal Credit Union, said they have been in Golden Valley for a very long time and their current facilities no longer meet their needs. He referred to a site plan and stated that they are planning to build a very nice credit union and they are also working on re-branding their image. He stated that they will have to construct the building on pilings because of the flood plain and they will work with FEMA and the City regarding the flood plain issues. Keysser asked if there are any environment concerns due to the fuel tanks. Lieberthal said there are some minor issues but the current owner will be required to remove the tanks before they buy the property. Kluchka stated that this location is highly visible and asked the applicant if the credit union will lease out space for commercial use. Lieberthal said they won't lease out any space because credit unions are not allowed to own investment properties because they are taxed differently. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 601 Boone Avenue North to allow for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union building with 4 drive-through lanes in the Commercial Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. The site plan for the TFCU new branch facility at 601 Boone Ave. N. prepared by HTG Architects and dated 7/14/08 shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 17 2. The recommendations and findings of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 31,2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. 3. The recommendations and findings of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in a memo to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 30, 2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. 4. A sidewalk connection between the sidewalk along Boone Ave. N. to the sidewalk in front of the proposed credit union building shall be constructed along with other site improvements. 5. The Building Board of Review shall review and approve the final landscape plan for this site. 6. Any failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. ---Short Recess--- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business No other business was discussed. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm. Le~~' Q