Loading...
06-08-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2009 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, June 8, 2009. 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 April 27, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck noted several typographical errors. Waldhauser asked that the last sentence on the first page be clarified. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 27, 2009 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - Planned Unit Development- Xenia Ridge - PUD 108 Applicant: Opus Northwest, LLC Address: 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue South Purpose: To allow for the construction of approximately 279,000 square feet of office space and approximately 11,300 square feet of retail space Grimes explained that this same proposal was brought before the Planning Commission and City Council last year. He explained that at that time the City Code stated an applicant has six months after preliminary PUD approval to submit their Final PUD plans. Since that time, the City Code has been amended to allow an applicant to ask for a 6- month extension to submit their Final PUD Plans. The preliminary plans for the Xenia Ridge proposal were approved last year; however those approvals have lapsed, so the applicant is again seeking approvals for this project. Grimes referred to his staff report dated June 3 and stated that he has revised it to include conditions regarding the demolition of the existing buildings within 90 days after Final PUD plan approval and that prior to the demolition of the building they shall be made secure. He reiterated that this is the same proposal and the same staff reports that the Planning Commission reviewed last year. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2009 Page 2 Tom Shaver, Vice President Real Estate Development, OPUS, stated that the market has changed significantly since they brought the Xenia Ridge proposal to the City last year. He said they feel this is a very prominent corner in a healthy corridor but the market is preventing them from going forward with their plans. Keysser asked Shaver if OPUS has an approximate time table for this development. Shaver said he hopes to start on this project a year from now depending on the climate of the market. Waldhauser asked Shaver if OPUS is open to considering other uses for this property such as residential or mixed use if those markets should happen to open up faster than the office market. Shaver said they are always open to considering other markets however residential and retail are worse than office right now. Eck asked why OPUS is coming back at this point if they are unable to indicate a time frame for this development. Shaver said they would like to have their preliminary PUD approvals in place so they are prepared if a customer comes forward. Eck asked if OPUS intends to keep asking the City for extensions until they are ready to build. Shaver said yes. Grimes added that if substantial changes to the plans occur, OPUS would need to reapply for PUD approval. Also, the City Council can add conditions to the Preliminary PUD approval if they wish. Eck asked what kind of impact the West End development in St. Louis Park will have on this proposal. Shaver stated that their development has a smaller retail component than the West End development. Grimes stated that the developers of both projects are in the same situation with the office market and that both developers will be waiting with their Preliminary PUD Approvals at this point. Keysser asked Shaver what happened to the idea of building a hotel. Shaver said the site is too small for a hotel. Waldhauser asked what the obstacles are to removing the existing buildings now rather than after Final PUD approval. Shaver said it is a financial issue. Keysser noted that OPUS doesn't own the property yet so they can't remove the buildings until they own the property. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Cera questioned the status of Colonnade's proposal in this area. Grimes said staff has not heard from them in a while but he thinks they would still like to build an office building however they are in the same situation with the office market. Keysser questioned the status of the MnDOT owned property located east of the Metropolitan and the Good Day Cafe. Hogeboom stated that Global One Commercial has discussed building luxury rentals and medical office space in that location. They have Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June a, 2009 Page 3 submitted a deposit to the City for the purpose of a traffic study. Grimes added that traffic and access are going to be the challenges with that site. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Xenia Ridge - PUD #1 oa with the following conditions: 1. The Xenia Ridge plan packet consisting of 24 sheets and prepared by Opus Northwest, L.L.C. shall become a part of this approval. These plans sheets are listed on Sheet Number CS and include the preliminary plat, site plan, grading plan, landscape plan and floor plans. 2. Lighting plans must meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. Prior to approval of building permits for the site, the proposed Photometric Site Plan, including a detailed balcony lighting plan, will be further reviewed to insure compliance with the plan. 3. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review. 4. The findings and recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated April 7, 200a shall become a part of this recommendation. This includes Opus signing an agreement with the City of Golden Valley that would agree to payment of special assessments for street and other public improvements. Opus would also waive their right to appeal special assessments as part of this agreement. 5. The findings and recommendations in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated April 7, 200a shall become a part of this recommendation. 6. A snow storage plan shall be submitted before approval of the final plan. 7. The existing buildings on the site shall be demolished within 90 days of approval by the City Council of the Final PUD Plan. a. Prior to demolition of the existing buildings on the site the buildings shall be secured in a manner acceptable to the Golden Valley Public Safety Department and Building Inspections Department. The Planning Commission also makes the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient - Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2009 Page 4 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. -Short Recess- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser reported on an APA Brown Bag lunch tour she took of the Heart of City area in Burnsville. McCarty reported on the May 26 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He stated that there was a request from a resident who started building a deck in his front yard over his existing front steps without a building permit. The applicant applied for a variance for this deck because it was too close to the front yard property line however if it would have been an open front porch, with a roof, he could have built it without a variance. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals would like staff and the Planning Commission to discuss or better define front porches, stoops, decks, landings, etc. and how close they can be to the front yard property line. Grimes stated staff would prepare some language for the Planning Commission to review at their next meeting. 5. Other Business Kluchka asked about the large dirt pile on the southwest corner of TH 55 and Winnetka Ave. in Brookview Park. He asked about the plans for the dirt pile and stated that he would like to see a high density tower located on that corner. Grimes said that it is a critical storage area for the City and it will probably continue to be used this way. He said he would talk to the Public Works staff about it. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. k~a Lester Eck, Secretary