Loading...
01-12-04 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 12, 2004 7pm I. Approval of Minutes December 22, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD 97 - Sunrise of Golden Valley Applicant: Sunrise Development Address: 4900 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: The Planned Unit Development would allow for the construction of a 3-story, 80 unit senior assisted living facility. -- Short Recess -- II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings III. Other Business Discuss higher density housing criteria. IV. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . December 22, 2003 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 December 22, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. . Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Key Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes December 8, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Pentel referred to paragraph five on page six and stat changed to say that she liked the way the draft P Commission to consider all issues when reviewi MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck a minutes from December 8, 2003 with t animously to approve the ge. II. an Map Amendments Applicant: Purpose: 1. ".Jinition of Medium Density on the nsiveP>lan Map from 5.5 to 11.9 units per acre to 5-20 ere. e the definition of High Density on the Comprehensive n Map from 12 or more units per acre to 20 or more units per Redesignate certain parcels due to the definition changes. d the Planning Commission that a public hearing for a minor subdivision was he cember8, 2003 to allow for a consolidation of four lots located at the corner of Laurel and Turners Crossroad, north of Fire Station Number 2 to allow for a 3- story apartment building to be constructed. He stated that the owner of this property is also the owner of Laurel Estates located to the west and that he has been in the process of planning for this type of development in this location for several years. Grimes said that it was brought to staff's attention that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the Zoning Map designation in the area along Turners Crossroad where the new apartment building is being prOposed. He explained thatthe Comprehensive Plan Map allows up to 11.9 units per acre to be built, however, . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 2 the Zoning Map allows 19.8 units per acre. He added that in 1997, new State legislation requires that the Zoning Map be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. G rimes stated that when staff looked at this area in 1999 the intent was to allow something similar to the Laurel Estates apartments and that Mr. Goldman, the property owner, would like tbbuild up to the maximum number of units allowed peracre in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to his staff report and said that there is more than this one location in Golden Valley where there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map. Pentel referred to Laurel Estates and stated that it is a PUD and tha gives an exception for making the General Land Use Plan Map a Grimes said that PUD for Laurel Estates was created in 1979 a designated medium density housing but that somehow is wa that. Inance atch. s sity than Pentel asked if PUDs create exceptions to the Zoning fill the Comprehensive Plan. PUDs should be consis prior to 1997 it was the reverse, the Zoning ordi Comprehensive Plan. Pentel stated that in this case the last ti it should have been changed to high d Estates area should have been ch have most logically also have b Plan Map. He suggested that al proposed Goldman apart study the entire City to b Use Plan fillap was updated es a eed and said in 1999 the Laurel 'ty and the property around it should igh density on the General Land Use u to just change the designation forthe meeting. It may be best to have more time to s are resolved. are so many issues that are inherent in making a. and Use Plan Map that they need to take more time to to work on changing the designation on this proposed division is going through the approval process and the City hat the proposed development will look like. Grimes stated ttorney he feels the conflict should really be addressed now. at changing the designation for these specific properties would allow for re but that the zoning for the properties would not change. Grimes ct, the zoning would not be changing. Rasmusse sked what kind of assumptions the applicant made about the.use of the land when the streets were reconfigured during the Meadowbrook reconstruction. Grimes said the applicants looked at itthe same way as staff did, as a 3-story apartment building. He added that street capacity is not an issue with this property. Grimes stated that in doing research he also became aware of some properties that need ) to be re-designated the other way and are not appropriate for high density housing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 3 . Rasmussen asked why these maps weren't checked during the Comprehensive Plan update process the last time it was updated. Grimes said that the Laurel Estates area should have been designated high density at that time because it is high density and that fact that it wasn't is because it was missed by himself or other planners. Pentel opened the public hearing. Catherine Mcintire, 625 Turnpike Rd., stated that the neighborhood heard nothing of this meeting before the previous Saturday. . Grimes stated that notices were sent out to all property owners that the subject property even though it is not a requirement to send 0 Comprehensive Plan changes. Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson, 90 S. 7th Street, Minneap"; applicant, stated they also notified everyone within 500 feet neighborhood meeting on the minor subdivision. Pente ked meeting. Gandrud said it was in November. Pente of the lots. Gandrud said yes. Gandrud stated that they have been talkin combining these lots. He said the prop M-1 property and they have proceede agrees that this one property shou the City should be studiedfurth that they are available to answ nd off for 17 years about property, they planned it as un er M-1 requirements. He said he that the properties in the rest of this isn't a hearing for their plans but Mary Zilinski, 633 Turnp. conflict between the Gen if the public notice was given before or after the se an Map and the Zoning Map was identified. She ore about the appropriate procedure to amend the trikes her as odd to say the City only has to give notice s within 500 feet if we're talking about the se she envisions it to be more like the constitution whereas Ie more like a statute, so if the overall plan for Golden Valley e thinks the citizens that are anywhere near a subject property to know what's going on. She added that the notice she received the . the first she has heard about this application. imes if a public hearing notice was sent out for this meeting and what it said. Grim said yes, a notice was sent out to those property owners within 500 feet of the property where this proposed apartment building is being proposed, not to the. other areas where other changes to the General Land Use Plan Mapwas in conflict with the Zoning Code. He said that in 1999 when the entire Comprehensive Plan Map was updated a notice was not sent to every homeowner. Notice was given by an article in the newspaper or newsletter. Formal public hearings before the City Council require an official hearing notice in the SunPost. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 4 Pentel stated that in the past properties and re-development proposals have come before the Planning Commission where there is a Zoning Map change and a Land Map change. She asked if in those situations for those individual properties if the only notice that's gone out for Planning Commission meetings is to property owners within 500 feet. She asked if PUDget noticed separately in the newspaper. Grimes stated that only notices for formal public hearings where the decision is made by the City Council are published in the newspaper. McAleese stated that part of the confusion with this application is that t separate meeting in November that had nothing to do with the minor added that in effect ifanapplicant meets the zoning requirements e Planning Commission or City Council approval. Jon Dibb, representing his mother, Mildred Olson, who lives presented a petition to the Commissioners. It expresses that to maintain the current density on the Comprehensive zoned. He said in this situation there is more to b want to worry about more traffic and any other s concerned him is that he heard the Planning Co already a done deal. He stated that he ha Lutheran Church who said he feels co the congregation and that they don't a to get it in line with the Zoning Ma more density than what is there zoning. He discussed the acce the back streets such as L 100 prior to the closing concerned about a doubl play and people wa eir that the people hav clock and thro u apartments in t rossroad, Ie . e area want e wR~ he. property is ut. The neighbors don't id one thing that n't listen and that it is e minister of Golden Valley etition for all 800 people in e Comprehensive Plan Map just I he realizes there is going to be units would be allowed under the current a tated that they never had seen traffic on , adisson, and Turnpike trying to get to Highway oad south of Glenwood. He said he is y rig cross from single family homes where kids e stated that this is going to be a huge change and eclosing of Turners Crossroad and to reverse the back in the area is concerning. He said there are other not are coming right off into a residential area. Pentel a e neighborhood would support keeping the apartment proposal to 51 unit ould comply with M-1 even though the zoning is for 19 units per acre, re nizing e would still be a conflict with the Laurel Estates property. Dibb stat es, a added that property values area concern and traffic and safety are a big concer said that the proposed apartments would be a change in 35. units compare aurel Estates which is 40 to 50 units so the new apartments would be one and half times the size of Laurel Estates. Charles Reynolds, 200 Turnpike Road, stated that he did receive two notices regarding this property, one from Mr. Goldman and one from the City. He said he realizes his neighbors concerns and agrees that they don't want to revert to the way Turners Crossroad was but that he doesn't think that is the intent. He said. he certainly would not want to see headlights coming into his house and understands that concern. He stated that he attended the meeting that the applicant held in November and that he found them . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 5 to be very workable, high quality people to work with. He said that he does not see this proposed development devaluing the property values in the area at all and that the applicant is not a short term developer which he appreciates. He said he drives by Laurel Estates 3 to 4 times a day and it is a very attractive building. He added that this property has been zoned for apartments, there is nothing they can do about it, and it's going to be apartments. The building is not going to be junk, the applicant maintains his properties and he appreciates it. He stated that he does want to make sure that the entrance isn't a problem for the houses across the street and that the berm is high enough so that the cars in the parking lot won't be seen. Carol Gohman, 621 Turners Crossroad, stated that there are a 10 intersections on Turnpike Road and Lawn Terrace and she get walking their dogs and playing. She said that there would be units and 86 units and that there will be a lot of extra cars. Pentel suggested a right turn out of the proposed apa traffic back to Xenia. Grimes stated that as part of the traffic study th circulation on the site plan and make sug said that traffic isn't an issue the Planni she is glad it will be in the minutes and. eer will review the internal ffic should be routed. Pentel andle at this meeting but se issues .is good. Shaffer clarified that the issue i proposal would not have to co sal complied with the Zoning Code the ning Commission or City Council at all. Pentel stated that if the Land Use Plan Map allo generally speaking w the maximum densi 12 units an acre which is what the General t er ould be no issue. Grimes agreed and said that is looked at is that people have the right to build up to d in the Zoning Code. law says that the Comprehensive Plan governs then people e Zoning Map if there is an error on the zoning map to build Zoning Code says a person can build to "a maximum of" real y isn't a conflict in complete terms because an M-1 type of till be built it would just be limited tothe density per acre based on hensive Plan Map says. Gandrud c led that Laurel Estates has 65 units and that they are planning a right in rightout on Turners Crossroad. He stated that there is a condition on thelinal approval of the subdivision that a berm must be put in. GretchenMeyer, 201 Turners Crossroad asked whose responsibility, before pen was ever put to paper, in developing these plans to determine what the size of this building should be. Was it Mr. Goldman's responsibility, his architect, or his hired attorney to have contacted the City to make sure their ducks were in a row? Grimes stated that it .is all public information. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 6 Pentel asked if the applicants have brought in any actual plans of the proposed building with an actual number of units. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the applicant did show plans of the proposed building at the last Planning Commission meeting. He added that the applicants have gone above and beyond what they have needed to do and that Sfaff held their public hearing off an agenda so the public could see what the proposed building was going to look like. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad stated that he is one of the people who canvassed the neighborhood to get signatures for the petition. He said f the houses he went .to with the exception of two thought the General La ap should stay medium density. He added that every time he opens s out his front window he's going to be staring straight at this and he imum of 51 units. Mildred Olson, 319 Turners Crossroad stated that she wante applicants did not have the neighborhood meeting unt e boring soil samples. She said that she stopped by and he gave her Mr. Goldman's name so she c with the neighborhood. He said yes he would in Mr. Goldman for over a month. She adde "t neighborhood finally found out what wa n ors saw a truck ed to Mark Grimes ould have a meeting hey didn't hear anything from er insistence that the Grimes explained that he asked M his discussion with Ms. Olson. meeting and that it was delaye policy to encourage develo City because then peopl neighborhood meeting far before ays Mr. Goldman's intent to have a t i ting drawings done. He said it is Staff's ith communities first before they hear it from the sal is a done deal. McAleese said that applicant have a nel meeting and t c ct is that the subdivision code doesn't require that the ting and that he should be commended for having a layed for drawings seems reasonable. Crossroad said that he lives directly across the street from the rea and there are lots of children on that street. He stated that osition and that everyone he has spoke to does not want the changes. He suggested getting the traffic to exit onto LClurel or ion to the traffic problem and said he thinks that would alleviate a lot of the proposed apartment building. Pentel said that was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting and that the City can't always tell people where to access their property. Grimes explained that Xenia goes to a wetland area and having traffic go onto Laurel would encumber Mr. Goldman's other property and that it is up to him whether he wants to look at that option or not. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 7 Mary Zilinski, 633 Turnpike Road, asked what the next steps are procedurally to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Pentel said the next step is a public hearing at the City Council. She added that there will be a notice published in SunPost Newspaper before that meeting. McAleese explained that the Planning Commission's job is to make a recommendation to the City Council and that the Council makes the final decision on the issue. Zilinski said that the Planning Commission is talking about amend in and that she is puzzled with the notion of only providing notice wi affected by the Plan in all of those areas affected by the discre documents and it seems that there would be more than just feet of each of those areas that should be notified. Pentel explained that making all of the changes to the this meeting is beyond the scope of what the Plan ' this meeting so ultimately what they are discuss' s t Laurel Estates PUD. She explained that if the C were t General Land Use Plan Map that the Plan missi notices. Plan Map at wants to tackle at property and the ake changes globally to the not required to send out Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Cross if the traffic was to spill out acro cause an encumbrance to the encumbered by this propo spoke to one neighbor w ommissioner saying earlierthat her property (Laurel Estates) it would ,,:e said that their property is already roperty values have plummeted. He said he , even have time to sell his house. Pentel stated that t and has been desig having a buildin in be build accord' s been zoned M-1 which allows multiple unit dwellings density and that people have had the fortune of not t it is allowable for the proposed apartment build to isting Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. Grimes(~i where m as not shown a devaluation of property throughout the City lIing units have gone in. Joh i.bb th sidewalks fo the Zoning: ed Grimes for quick response to his email. He said that there are no ople to walk and asked which comes first the General Land Use Plan or p. To him the General Land Use Plan comes first then the Zoning Map, Steve Feigin, 25 Turnpike Road, asked how the disruption to their daily lives could be minimized once the construction starts on Turners Crossroad. Pentel said that normally construction can occur from 7 am to 10 pm and that no one is allowed to store materials on the street without a permit from the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 8 . Feigin asked about big trucks parked on both sides of the street. Pentel said that the Public Safety Department takes that very seriously and would try to make sure that would not occur. Feigin said there are rules, and things that people aren't required to do, but there are also people's lives and there has to be understanding, leeway and communication because it is not going to affect the Commissioners lives, it's going to affect their lives dramatically. . Seeing and hearing no one further wanting to speak. Pentel closed t Grimes reiterated that the City tries to keep the construction di m. Groger stated that he agrees that the Planning Commission to these two specific properties. He said that there are too m discuss at this meeting without having more publicity. k has because the proponent has said they bought understanding, however, the General Land Use all. He asked if there was a time frame or deadli something in order to allow or not allow co Iscussion city wide to ity the City a certain II ument available to for the City to do lace. Grimes said that once the final plat is want to start building. He said that has made decisions based on t dependency on that information this issue yet. assu es the applicants are going to s said that the property owner ,information and that there has been e't:lasn't made his definitive statement on be reasonable. Wh compliance with eac Ing a t reliance and that the idea of reliance has to a state statute that says two things have to be in id there is a conflict because the Zoning Code says its allowed under the Zoning Code and the ere is the maximum number of units allowed under the is a smaller number. He said he thinks that the two ed together and that a reasonable person understanding that Plan governs should have understood that the lower number is the f units that's available. He said he doesn't know how a person can hen the Comprehensive Plan, which is a public document, and the y different things and state law says the Comprehensive Plan is the top Pentel said she agrees with Cornmissioner McAleese. She said when she looks at PUD number 18A (Laurel Estates) and this proposal she doesn't have a problem with recommending the General Land Use Plan be changed to high density because that .is what is accurate. She said she has a greater problem changing the other properties. . McAleese said that reliance on the Zoning Code doesn't make sense and the single question should be is if changing the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. . . . Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,.2003 Page 9 Rasmussen said she is not inclined to separate the properties and feels it would be setting some kind of precedent. She said she is not comfortable without an opinion from the City Attorney and she is not in favor of changing this piece of property. She added that this is a good example of how a public hearing can be. She said the developer has been cooperative and the citizens have been respectful. Pentel said the applicants re-platting can go ahead as planned and agreed that an opinion of the City Attorney would be helpful. Eck stated that he can understand how the developer would rely on t~:~ zOnln..,ren determining the density he could build there without comparing th . Map t~the General Land Use Plan Map and asked how the density numb eci in the General Land Use Plan came about. Grimes said that the density numbers have been on the Gen since 1981 were copied over to the 1999 version and wrote the first Comprehensive Plan in the 1970's He explained thatthere used to be a single fami Plan Map but it was changed to low density bec 2-family types of developments that are sf single family homes as long as there w then the medium density was a lotof t there has been some change in th some of the needs the City has. with over 70% of the housing b Commission and the City there are very few locati housing and he thinks the one of those areas re t housing and higher Ian Map in ultant who with the numbers. eneral Land Use ere a lot of town home and aracter but they are not s it was still low density, opments. He said he thinks ents over the last 20 years and primarily a single family community f homes. He said he thinks the Planning een a need to have a variety of housing and ve even a chance for having some diversity in g 0 ission and the City Council saw this area as uld have the chance to have some diversity in Eck said he wo should b the und designation on the Plan Map or the numbering system referred to Vallee D'or and said that it is another case where sn't match the General Land Use Plan. rlier it was said that the General Land Use Plan Map had low, medi . and .:.h density categories and that at some point Open Development was elimina,~:~.~;~,the Zoning Map. He asked when the Zoning Map was changed. Grimes said in 2002 the subject property was rezoned from Open Development to M-1. Shaffer said it was changed at that poinUo the higher density and now it seems like the Planning Commission is saying that's not what we want. He added that it seems like the density should have been changed on the General Land Use Plan Map in 2002 as well. Eck asked when the stated change the law that requires the General Land Use Plan Map to be the ruling document. Grimes said 1997. Eck said that the City probably wasn't allowed to do what was done in 2002. Grimes said probably not. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 10 McAleese said that isn'tnecessarily the case. He said you have to assume that when you are talking about the lower density number that is in the Comprehensive Plan that is inconsistent with the language of the Zoning Code and it isn't. The Zoning Code says you can build "up to a maximum" of, you can build "up to" this amount it doesn't say you get this completely or that your entitled fully to it. Shaffer said that the Planning Commission changed the Zoning Code in 2002 to M-1 thinking it could go up to the maximum it could go. Penteldisagreed and said that the Zoning Code was changed to M-1 because R-1 and R-2 did not seem nd M-1 is the first category above R-2. Keysser said he thinks the developer is incumbent on checkin the Land Use Map and they should check both maps. p and Gandrudsaid that they came to this meeting on the recomm did not make the point on reliance, the Planning Comm'i 'on that Golden Valley is the applicant and Golden Va McAleese said the Commission is saying that th based upon the issue of if there was relia for them to consider. to make their decision not on't think that is a real issue Keysser said he thinks the two pro City. He said he doesn't think 8 Commissioners if they think thi opinion. Shaffer said he th traffic dumping onto Tur added that there has bee d at separately from the rest of the inappropriate for this site. He asked the e tabled until they can get a legal uld be wise. Keysser said he is concerned about a he traffic going further onto Lawn Terrace. He In t e mount of traffic after Turnpike was closed. to make this decision on this issue. McAleese ask regarding missioners if they only want to make a motion at this meeting Park Acres site and Laurel Estates. would like some history of when changes were made to this eneral Land Use Plan Map. Grimes said he would do some rify the questions the Planning Commission has with the C'ity Attorney. MOVED b eysser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to table the following requests relating only to the proposed Oak Park Acres site and the Laurel Estates property until the January 12, 2004 meeting. 1. To change the definition of Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 5.5 to 11.9. units per acre to 5-20 units peracre. 2. To change the definition of High Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 12 or more units per acre to 20 or more units per acre. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 11 . II. -- Short Recess -- Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 pm. . . J . . . Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 7, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Design Plan tor Sunrise Assisted Living and Infinity Office Building, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 97-4900 Olson Memorial Highway-Sunrise Development, Inc. and Infinity Motel Holdings LLC, Applicants BACKGROUND Sunrise Development and Infinity Motel Holdings have requested the approval of a planned unit development (PUD) for the 5.5 acres at the northeast intersection of Schaper Rd. .and Olson Memorial Highway. The PUD will create two lots-one for the existing two-story, 32,000 sq. ft. office building located along Ottawa Ave. and another for the yet to be constructed 80-unit senior assisted living facility at the west end of the site. The 5.5 acres was the former location of the White House restaurant and the Golden Valley Inn motel. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) acquired the White House property in the late 1990's. The White House site is still owned by the HRA. (The HRA has signed a development agreement with Sunrise to build the assisted living building.) The Golden Valley House hotel was purchased by Infinity and operated as a motel until several years ago. The City demolished itdue to its hazardous condition. (The City was reimbursed for the demolition by Infinity through an assessment process.) This demolition made way for the construction of the office building by Infinity located on the east portion of the site. The property where the office building now stands is zoned Commercial. This zoning allows for the construction of office buildings. Several years ago, Infinity was conditionally designated by the HRA to develop the White House site and its own motel site..The idea was to have a cohesive development over the entire 5.5-acre site. There have been several proposals for the site that have not come to fruition including the construction of a gas/conveinience store/retail center. The gas/convenience storelretail center concept was not embraced by the HRA. Rather than wait to find a development concept that was acceptable to the HRA for the west side of the site (the White House property), Infinity went ahead and developed the office building with the hope that they would find a development concept acceptable to the HRA for the White House site. If such a development was found, 1 itwas hoped thatthe HRA would agree to sell the White House property to Infinity in order i.tocomPlete the redevelopment of the 5.5 acres. Late last year, the HRA signed a development agreement with Sunrise and Infinity that provided for the sale of the White House property for the construction of an 80-unit senior assisted living building. The 5.5 acres will be divided into two lots. The Sunrise lot will include all of the old White House lot plus about .33 acres of the old Golden Valley Inn site where the office is now located. The Infinity site where the office building is now located will be reduced by .33 acres but .42 acres will be added to its lot just west of the office building along Olson Memorial. Highway. There will be a shared driveway to both of the sites from Schaper Dr. across from the softball fields. The property is currently designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Commercial uses. The zoning of the property is Commercial. The North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment Plan calls for the reuse of the White House site and the upgrading of the motel. When the Redevelopment Plan was written in 1997 ,the hazardous nature of the motel was not fully known. Since it has been removed, the redevelopment of the entire 5.5 acres is consistent with the overall goal of the North Wirth Parkway.Redevelopment area. Although the senior assisted housing is not specifically noted in the Redevelopment Plan, itappears to be a use that is consistent with the other mixed uses in the area. Sunrise Inc. has noted that this type of location near a busy arterial. is desirable for the assisted living facility because it makes it easier for visitors to find. Also, the residents like the busy nature of the location. The nearby park and open space is a desirable neighborhood for this type of housing. . Because the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map both are not consistentwith senior assisted housing, the Plan Map and Zoning Map will have to be amended prior to approval of the General Plan of Development. Policy has been that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Preliminary Design Plan and that recommendation goes to the City Council for approval. If the City Council approves the concept of the PUD (the Preliminary Design Plan phase), the amendment to the General Land Use Plan map and Zoning Mapwould begin. According to the City Attorney, the changes to the General Land Use Plan map and Zoning Map should be considered at the same time as the General Plan of Development or the final stage of the PUD. If the amendments to the Plan Map and Zoning Map were approved prior to the General Plan of Development, the developer could decide to abandon the PUD and the City is then left with property guided and zoned for a development that may never be built. There are two stages of approval for all PUD approvals. This is the first, or preliminary design plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan of Development stage. Preliminary plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitation of the preliminary plan approval is clearly laid out. City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 6D states that: . The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land 2 . use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in.the land use plan by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modification. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposal of Sunrise and Infinity is quite simple. The 5.5-acres would be divided into two lots with the existing two-story, 32,900 sq. ft. office building on the east lot and the proposed three-story, 80-unitsenior assisted living facility on the west lot. The Sunrise lot would be slightly smaller with a size of 2.6 acres. The Infinity office building would be located .on a lot about 2.9 acres in size. As indicated on the site plan, the property is bounded on all four sides by streets. The north and west sides of the site are bordered by Schaper.Dr., the east by Ottawa Ave. .andthe south by Olson Memorial Highway. The properties to the east are industrial. The properties across Olson Memorial Highway to the south are office. Schaper Park is to the north and to the west is City open space and apartments. There is a small single-family neighborhood south of Sweeney Lake and north of the railroad tracks. The only access to the single- family neighborhood on Killarney.Dr. is from the intersection of Olson Memorial.Highway and Schaper Dr. Access to this area is.primarily from the intersection.of Schaper Dr. and Olson Memorial Highway. This access point also provides the main access to the industrial areato the east, . the small single-family area to the north on the south side of Sweeney Lake, an. d the apartment commercial area at the northeast quadrant of TH 100 and Olson Memorial Highway. There is now a secondary access to the area from the west since the east TH 100 frontage road now connects to the west TH 100 frontage road north of the railroad tracks. The site plan indicates that the office building will have 131 parking spaces or one space for each 250 sq. ft. of office space. This meets the City's requirement for office space. The 80-unit assisted living facility has 38 parking spaces. Based on their experience with other senior assisted living bUildings they own in Minnesota and other states,Sunrise believes that the38 parking spaces is more than adequate. Few, if any, of their residents own a car. Therefore, parking should be adequate for their employees and visitors. Sunrise has indicated that their peak employee count on site will be 27. City staff is comfortable that the 38 spaces will be more than adequate during the weekdays. During evenings, weekends, or holidays, parking in the office. parking lot will be available via a cross parking agreement. The. site plan indicates the location of a sidewalk connection to make the office parking as accessible as possible. The site plan also indicates a vacant area west of the office building. (This is the .42 acres that is now a part of the old White House lot that will be made a part of the Infinity office lot.) Staff will be asking Infinity about their intended use of this area. If it is intended to be parking, it should be indicated on the plan that it could be future parking. If it is to remain landscaped, the type of landscaping for this area should be indicated. The staff recommends that the use of the area be indicated on the General Plan of Development. . 3 The site plans indicate the location of the buildings on the lots in relation tollie streets. The ...... .....office. b. uilding on. the east lot is located. 35 ft. fro. m both Ottawa Ave.. a...n.....d.... O.lson Memorial . .. Highway. The parking areas are also located 35 ft. or greater from Ott~wa Ave. and Schaper Dr. (The office building was built prior to the PUD and had to meet all requirements of the Commercial zoning district.) The proposed senior assisted building is proposed to be constructed in the location illustrated on the site plan. The building is more than 35 ft. from Olson Memorial Highway and Schaper Rd. However, the parking areas are as close to 10 ft. from SChaper Dr. to the west and north of the building. Because streets on three sides surround the Sunrise site, the 10ft. setback for parking is reasonable. Sunrise has designed the parking lot so that there will not be any visibility problems for those driving on Schaper Dr. due toparked cars. As indicated, the Sunrise site will be significantly landscaped. This landscaping is done to enhance the environment for the residents. Staff has visited their Rosevillefacility located at Snelling Ave. and Oakcrest St. just north of Rosedale. Sunrise has done an excellent job in this location and used landscaping veryeffectiyely. The Roseville location is very similar to this location because it is located next to a busy arterial street and near an active City park. The.staff applauds the proposed landscape plan. ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION PUDs are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come into playwhen screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After considering the Sunrisellnfinity PUD application in view of all four subdivisions, staff finds that the proposal is eligible and may enter the preliminary design stage of the PUD process. PUD Definition-PUDs are defined in City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.6, which allows PUDs for developments located within redevelopment areas. This site has been in the North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment area since 1997. Also, it meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.5, which allows PUDs for developments having two or more principal use structures on two or more lots in single or multiple ownership as long as the area is greater than one acre. . PUD Purpose and Intent-Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUDs as set out in City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 1. This section states that the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." In this 4 case, it would be difficult for the proposed site to be used in a reasonable manner without a .. PUD due to its .Iocation adj~cent .to four stre. ets. The use Of. the PUDi.S a. Isoconsisten.t with the North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment Plan that calls for strengthening of thetax base and remediation of blighting conditions by the encouragement of new development and rehabilitation. Standards and Crit~ria for PUDs -City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUDs in Section 11.55, Subd. 5. Commercial uses are discussed in Section 5C. Since this .isa mixed development with housing and office, staff will. use the eight business standards. The list is as follows with staff comments: 1. The tract shall have not less than 100 ft. of frontage on a public street. In this case, the site has over 600 ft. of frontage on Olson Memorial Highway. 2. Public water, sewer and fire hydrants must serve the development. Publ.ic utilities and hydrants currently serve the site. Please see the attached memos from the City Engineer and Deputy Fire Marshal. 3. The surface drainage systems shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the attached plans and his comments are in his attached memo. . 4. The entire site shall be utilized for the PUD. In this case, the entire 5.5.,acre site is part of the PUD. 5. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surface as indicated on a plan approved by the City Council. The proposed site plan indicates such a plan and it will become apart of the General Plan of Development. 6. Provisions shall be designed for off-street loading to service the businesses and such spaces shall have easy access and not be designated for other uses. Deliveries to the assisted living building will be done in the area shown on the plan. These deliveries will primarily be for food. Small deliveries will be primarily made to the front door such as UPS. Deliveries to the office building will be made through the front door. Most deliveries to this type of building are done by small trucks (UPS) except when tenants move in or out. 7. Private roadways shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer as to type and location. The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan and his comments are in his memo. 8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by tile City Council in accordance with landscape standards. The preliminary landscape plan for the assisted living building appears more than adequate. The final landscape plans should include the landscaping for the existing office building and its site. The Building Board of Review must approve the final landscape plan. In the case ofthe Infinity lot, the Building Board of Review has already approved a landscape plan for that lot. This should be . 5 . . . made a part ofthe final landscape plan submitted with the General Plan of Development for the PUD. Completeness of Application Packet-The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility is based on Section 11 ;55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes that various components must be.submitted at the time of preliminary design stage of the application. The City is in possession of each of the items outlined in this section and finds the packet adequate for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Sunrise/lnfinity PUD No. 97..The proposed building construction with site improvements are consistent with the goals of the North WirthParkway Redevelopment Plan andwill enhance the area around the Schaper Dr.lOlson Memorial Highway intersection. The proposed setbacks along Schaper Dr. are less than would be required if the project was done without a PUD. However, the site would be very difficult to develop with meeting a 35 ft setback on four . sides. Because of the quality landscaping and architecture of the assisted living building, the closenessofthe parking lot to SChaper Dr. will be softened. The shared parking and access to both lots is also a benefit to the site and the surrounding area. The developer will be required to add sidewalks along two of the sides of the PUD that will help enhance the walkability of the City. These sidewalk connections are important due to the location near a proposed regional trail and crossing of Olson Memorial Highway. This type of senior assisted housing is also needed in this community. Sunrise is a very experienced developer of this type of housing and they have shown the City an excellent product that has already been a success in both Edina and Roseville. In terms of traffic generation from this PUD, staff believes that there is adequate capacity in the street systems for these two proposed uses. The traffic signal that.was added at Schaper Dr. and Olson Memorial Highway several years ago has greatly helped the flow of traffic into and out of the area. The senior assisted living facility will have a minimal traffic impact because the great majority of the residents do not drive. The design of the PUD has provided for good access from the two buildings to the street systems. The City Engineer has written a detailed memo regarding this PUD. His comments will become a part of the recommendation. In speaking with the City Engineer Jeff Oliver PE, he believes that the issues raised in his memo can be addressed prior to the preliminary design plans going to the City Council or incorporated in the plans made part of the General Plan of Development. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and dated January 7,2004. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated December 16, 2003. '6 . . . 3. The Building Board of Review, as part of the building permit process, must approve the final landscape plan. The final landscape plan must include the landscaping plan for the Infinity office building lot. 4. The area directly west of the Infinity office building that was a part of the old White House site shall be landscaped. If iUs the intent of the owner to use it for parking, this should be indicated on the General Plan of Development. 5. The site plan, grading plan and utility plans submitted by PAE and dated December 10, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. These plans are subject to change as directed by the City Engineer inhis January 7, 2004 memo. 6. The architectural plans submitted by Sunrise and prepared by BeeryRio Architecture and dated July 15, 2003 shall become part of this recommendation. 7. The approval is subject to any other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over.this development. Attachments: Location Map Site plans submitted by PAE, dated December 10, 2003 Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated January 7, 2003 Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated December 16, 2003 7 . . "- '/9:- . ;/J ~.- , ...- /f---_ .~- HIGHWAY 55 ------A GHWAY Ss LIlAC DR \ I / ' ~\ LI / " / " '---__-::!.-......... f/ ~-r~}r~~ LLb%, jTM\~ ~ ,.......J._.c_L. ) 1. I . ./. /~ . '>/ .1:::,'lIf,.~ I /// . .c". '--.., .-1/ /O/sij;i"~V'" '. ,;:>// ..--/~ _//;c,"'; ." \ // . ..--/ ./'\ \ / ,/ ',/ '. \_/'. / -i \, .~/ ~. . \ \/ '.'~v , \./.\ , \ \ / / ... '. \. \./ "~.'~~" \ . \ /./;;-.";" \. ' \ . > .~:v" \ ''-'(.'<~~ \.\ '. /./~ ", \ -'... '\', '. \ I I o ~ ~ m z 14900 Olson Memorial Highway' \, I /// / HIGHWAY 55 AY55 / /~~ ./~ .~'t- ,/6~~ . alley Memorandum Public Works 763.593.80301 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: January 7,2004 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer SubjQct: Preliminary Design Plan Review: PUD 97, Sunrise Assisted Living Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Design Plan materials submitted for the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living Planned Unit Development (PUD) Number 97. The proposed PUD is bounded by Trunk Highway 55 on the south and SChaper Road on the west and north. The Golden Valley Office Building was recently constructed on the eastern portion of this block, immediately adjacent to Ottawa Avenue North. . Preliminary Plat: ltis our understanding that the existing Golden Valley Office Building and the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living facility are to be combined within this PUD. Each of the buildings will be platted as a separate lot and block, with an exchange of land in the center portion of the site occurring with the plat. The preliminary plat submitted for review does not include the location of any of the proposed easements on site. As required by City Gode, these easements must be shown for all proposed lots. The developer must submita preliminary plat including this information for review and comment. This includes a 20 foot wide easement centered over the proposed water main loop across this site, which mustbe shown onthe preliminary plat and the utility plan. . The preliminary plat includes the location of existing easements on the western portion of the site. These easements include the platted easements from the Schaper Addition, and separate easements over an abandoned sanitary sewer main that crosses the site. All easements that run in favor of the City, on both properties included in the PUD, must be vacated prior to recording of the final PUD plat. Therefore, the developer must submit legal descriptions of these easements to the City as part of the General Plan submittal for the PUD. As outlined in City Code, the preliminary plat must also include the location of all utilities on and adjacent to the property being platted. In this instance, the existing water main on the Golden Valley Office Building property is not shown. The C:\OOCUME-1\1wittman\LOCALS-1\T emp\PreOesignPlan 010604.doc . preliminary plat must be revised to include the location of this water main and any other utilities that have not been included. Because this development fronts on Trunk Highway 55, the preliminary plat is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). All MnDOT comments must be incorporated into the finalplaUor the site. OttawaAvenue, located on the east side of the PUD, was conveyed to the City of Golden Valley via a quitclaim deed by a previous landowner in the area. The full width of Ottawa Avenue North must be dedicated as street right-of-way on the final. plat. Site Plan: The site plan includes two driveways on the west side of the site with direct access to Schaper Road, and one driveway that is combined with the Golden Valley Office Building that also accesses Schaper Road to the north. The southern most driveway on the west side of the site must be posted for right- in traffic only. This access will allow full access to the covered resident drop-off area on the front of the proposed building. . The street system adjacent to this development has adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic that will be generated from this development. When Schaper Park, located across Schaper Road from this development, was built by the City it included construction ota portion of the Three Rivers Park District Regional Trail. Plans for the regional trail include extending it westward through Golden Valley, and an eastward extension into Wirth Park. The presence of this trail makes pedestrian and bike connections within the proximity of this development an important issue. Based upon this information, the construction of the eightfoot wide bituminous trail shown on the plans is encouraged. The proposed trail along Schaper Road must be extended south to Trunk Highway 55, and eastward to the intersection of Ottawa Avenue North as part of this PUD.The trail mustalso include a crossing atthe intersection with Lilac Drive to provide the connection with the regional trail. This crossing must include a pedestrian ramp onthe east curb line of SchaperRoad, painted crosswalks and appropriate sign installation. Based upon the need for crosswalk signs and signing for the required right-in driveway access discussed earlier, the developer must submit a signing plan as part of the General Plan submittal for the PUD. . Pedestrian ramps must be included at all locations where sidewalk or trail intersects driveways or parking lots. The pedestrian ramps must be constructed to City standards. Therefore, a City standard detail plate for the pedestrian ramps must be included within the plans. C:\DOCUME:"1 \Iwittman\LOCALS-1\Temp\f>reDesignPlao 010004.doc 2 . A City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way permit will be required for all work within Schaper Road. The permit must be obtained prior to the start of any work(>n site. All driveway entrances onto Schaper Road must be City standard commercial entrances. The standard detail plate for these driveway aprons must be included on the plans. A MnDOT permit will also be required for all work within the right-of-way for. TH 55. Utilitv Plan: The Preliminary Utility Plan submitted for review indicates a sanitary sewer extension from TH 55 onto the site to provide sewer service. The water main service is proposed to be provided by tapping an existing water main in the southwest corner of the site and looping around the building to connect toa main installed as part of the Golden Valley Office Building development. The sanitary sewer and water systems in this area are adequate to accommodate the anticipated usagefrom this development. . As discussed above, water service to the site is proposed via a connectiOn to a 12 inch water main within the TH 55 right-of-way near the intersection. with Schaper Road. The proposed utility plan shows two 12 inch mains in the same approximate location. However, City record drawings indicate that there is only one main here. The developer's engineer must confirm the location of the water main and show this main accurately on the plans. The utility plan must be revised to indicate all fittings, bends, materials and other appurtenances on the proposed water main. As submitted, it is difficult to determine how the proposed utility services will be constructed. The connection to the existing 12 inch water main in TH 55 must be. made with a wet tap connection. The proposed fire hydrant near the northeast corner of the Sunrise building must be placed.on the dead-end of the proposed water main to allow flushing of the main. The plan must clarify the connection to the existing water near the Golden Valley Office Building. In specific, the plans must specify method of connection and installation of valves and hydrants in this vicinity. . There is an existing sanitary sewer crossing this site from the south edge near Ottawa Avenue North that passes just east of the proposed Sunrise building. This sewer main was abandoned by the City as part of a sanitary sewer upgrade in this area several years ago. The Utility Plan must show this existing main, and identify the main for removal across the site. C:\OOCUME-1\1witlman\LOCALS-1\Temp\PreOesignPlan 010604.doc 3 .. The easements required over the water main extension across the site must, as qiscussedearlier in this review, must be shown on the Utility Plan. The plans must include all applicable City of Golden Valley standard detail plates for sanitary sewer and water mains. The. proposed sanitary sewer and water main extensions for this site will be ()wned and maintained by the owner. The City will retain ownership of the existing utilities within TH55, Ottawa Avenue North and Schaper Road. Gradina. Drainaaeand Erosion Control: The proposed PUDis within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Therefore, the development on this site must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's (BGWMC) Water Quality Policy; Based upon the Water Quality Policy, the developer must provide water quality ponding consistent with a Level 1 water body. The developer must submit additional information in order to determine if the ponding shown on the preliminary grading plan meets the BCWMC Water Quality Policy requirements. Copies of all storm water computations, including pipe and pond sizing and a drainage area map, must be submitted for review with the General Plan submittal. . The Grading Plan submitted for review has not been prepared according to City standards. The following items must be included on the plan in order to be in compliance with City standards: The plan must clearly be labeled as a Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. 1) The ordinary high water level (OHWL) and the 100 year high water level (HWL) of the proposed pond must be clearly labeled on the grading plan. 2) Standard detail plates for all storm sewer structures and erosion control items incorporated on the plan must be included on the plans. 3) All erosion control notes, as outlined on the City specifications for Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans. must be included on the plans. 4) The sizes, grades, pipe materials and structure inverts must be labeled on the plans. 5) The outlet from the pond must be a submerged outlet to provide the skimming required by the BCWMC. Withoutthe structure inverts or details discussed above staff is unable to determine if this requirement is met. . The proposed storm water pond shown on the plans appears to be a two-cell pond, with the primary water quality volume provided on the east end of the pond, and an overflow leading to the west end of the pond. The outfall from the pond is located on the northwest corner of the pond adjacent to Schaper Road. However, because the normal water level for the pond is not clearly evident, it is difficult to determine how the pond will function. It appears that the overflow area will be out of the water and flow will only occur when the water level in the eastern pond cell C:\DOCUME-1\lwittman\LOCALS-1 \ T emp\PreDesignPlan 010604.doc 4 . is approximately one foot deep. The developer's engineer must provide clarification on how the water quality pond is planned to function. If the overflow area between pond cells is proposed to be dry, additional information must be provided relating to plantings, turf or landscaping of the area between the two ponds. Staff is unable to fully analyze the grading plan that was submitted for review due to proposed contours not terminating on existing contours. The developer's engineer must review all proposed contours shown on the plan and revise as needed. The grading plan shows a catch basin on the northern (combined with office building) driveway onto Schaper Road that does not appear necessary. In addition, the plan indicates a valley gutter crossing the driveway out of the Sunrise parking lot that does not appear necessary. The developer's engineer should review the drainage in this area in an attempt to eliminate valley gutters and to install storm sewer to insure proper drainage. In addition, the existing pipe shown west of the catch basin discussed above must clearly be marked for removal on the grading plan. . The storm drainage system on this site, including all structures, pipes and the pond,will be owned and maintained by the developer following construction. In orderto insure that the water quality pond is properly maintained to provide the maximum nutrient and sediment removal, the developer will be required to enter into a Storm Water Facility Maintenance Agreement. This agreement must be signed by the developer prior to forwarding the General Plan for review and comment. Staff will prepare this agreement for execution by the developer. The developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit prior to starting any work on site. The developer will also be required to obtain a General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this project. A copy of the permit application must be submitted to the Golden Valley Public Works Department upon its submittal tothe MPCA, and a copy of the perrnitmust also be provided to the City once it is obtained. Tree Preservation: Although the plan includes some tree preservation information, a separate Tree Preservation Plan, prepared to City standards, must be submitted for review and comment. Summary and Recommendations: . Public Works staff recommends that the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living, PUD No. 97, be approved subject to the following conditions. These items must be C:\DOCUME.1\lwlttman\LOCALS-1\Ternp\PreDesignPlan 010604.ooc 5 ,'. addressed prior to forwarding the Pr~liminary Design Plan to the City Council for its consideration: 1) The Preliminary Plat must be revised to include the locations of all proposed easements on site, including the required 20 foot wide easements over the proposed water mains. 2) The preliminary and final plat must include the dedication of Ottawa Avenue North as right-of-way. 3) The bituminous trail shown on the plans must be extended eastward to Ottawa Avenue North and southward to Trunk Highway 55 as part of the PUD. 4) The UtilityPlan must be revised to address the water main inconsistencies near Trunk Highway 55, and other sanitary sewer and water main issues addressed in this review. 5) All City standard details for utility applications must be included on the plans. 6) The existing (abandoned) sanitary sewer crossing this site must be shown on the Utility Plan and must clearly be labeled for removal. . 7) The developer must submit the additional storm drainage information discussed in this review as part of the General Plan submittal. 8) The Gradingl Drainage and Erosion Control Plan mustbe modified as discussed within this review. The following items must be addressed and included in the General Plan submittal for the PUD: 1) The developer must submit legal descriptions of all easements on site that are to be vacated. The public hearing for the easement vacations must be scheduled for the same council meeting as the final plat approval. 2) The plans and subdivision are subject to the review and comment of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3) A pedestrian crossing must be included across Schaper Road on the north side of the intersection with Lilac Drive. 4) A signing and striping plan must be submitted for review and comment as part of the General Plan submittal. . 5) Pedestrian ramps must be installed at all points where the trail or sidewalk intersects curbs. The City standard detail for pedestrian ramps must be included on the plans. C:\DOCUME-1 \lwittman\LOCALS-1 \T emp\PreDesignPlan 010604.doc 6 . 6) The developer must.enter into a Storm Water Facility Maintenance Agreement for the pond on this site. The agreement, to be provided to the developer by the City, must be signed and submitted to the City as part.of the General Plan submittal. 7) The developer must submit a Tree Preservation Plan as discussed in this review. The following items must be addressed prior to the. start of construction on the site: 1) The developer must obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit; a Tree Preservation Permit, Right-of-Way permits and utility permits. 2) The developer must obtain a General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota, Pollution Control Agency. 3) Approval is also subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. Approval of the Preliminary Design Plan is also subject to the review and comment of other City staff. . Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding.this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator . C:\DOCUME-1 \IWittJnan\L()CALS-1\Temp\PreDesignPlan 010604.doc 7 . . . Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Station 1 fax: 763-512-2497 Station 2 fax: 763-591-2092 Station 3 fax: 763-520-3581 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Sunrise PUD 97 Development Revised Memo Date: December 16, 2003 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections I have reviewed the. Sunrise revised site and utility plans dated December 10, 2003. The following items listed below have not been corrected or addressed on the site and utility plans. 1. The fire department access road on the property should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. The Post Indicator Valve (PIV) for the fire suppression line is not indicated on the pl;:m. 3. The turning radius for the fire apparatus shall be a 45 foot inside turning radius. The turning radius shall be in conjunction with the fire department.access road. 4. The installation of the fire hydrants on the proposed site shall be maintained with the proper clearance of all landscaping and vegetation around the circumference of the fire hydrants. 5. Building access doors and access walkways will be required for the firefighters. These access walkways will be designed with an approved surface and maintained at all times. This information is not on the plan. If there are any questions regarding the above references, please contact me at 763-593-8065. . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 7, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Housing Study I have prepared the attached memo in order to start the discussion regarding criteria or questions that the City should consider when there are proposals to change the comprehensive plan map for higher density housing. Staff is anticipating these types of requests as the demand for a greater variety of housing increases. Please review my memo and make any suggestions or additions. I did use the list of concerns that was developed by the Planning Commission when reviewing a PUD application. Some of those concerns were helpful. What am I missing? Attachments: Memo from Mark Grimes dated January 2, 2004 . . . Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 2, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Factors to Consider When Changing the Comprehensive Plan to Allow Higher Density Housing Due to changing demographics, there will be a growing demand for higher density housing in the City of Golden Valley. (Higher density housing can mean townhomes, apartments, condominiums or other form of multiple family housing.) The population is aging and there will be a growing demand for housing that is more accessible for older persons. Staff hears from single family homeowners that want to remain in Golden Valley where they have established their roots but they can no longer take care of the single family house or they can see a time in the near future when they will not be able to take care of the house. What are their alternatives? There are also the younger folks that would like to live in Golden Valley because of its location, good schools or other opportunities. They also have difficulty finding housing because of cost, availability and limited variety. There are limited options for higher density housing in Golden Valley because the City is fully developed and the existing housing stock is 72% single family. (Of the first ring suburbs in the Twin Cities, only Crystal has more single family housing at 76% of their housing stock.) The Planning Commission believes that finding opportunities for more, higher density housing in Golden Valley is an important part of keeping this a vital place to live. Also, the Commission believes that maintaining the existing housing stock is equally important. Residents must remain confident that any changes that are made in Golden Valley will be ones that will not have an adverse impact on existing neighborhoods and increase overall livability. The General Land Use Plan does call for a diversity of housing. As stated above, however, there is very Iittle,.if any, land available for housing. One of the ways to accommodate higher density housing.into Golden Valley is to allow higher density housing in areas where the General Land Use Plan now calls for other uses such as low density housing, commercial uses, industrial uses or other uses.. The question then is: What makes one of the areas that is not currently designated for higher density housing appropriate for that type of use? What direction can the City give to the 1 development community regarding what areas the City may consider appropriate higher density housing that is currently not designated for that use? . The Planning Commission believes that it would not be appropriate to change the General Land Use Plan Map to show more areas appropriate for higher density housing. If this were done, the City would then be faced with the problem of changing the Zoning Map to conform to the Genera.1 .. Land Use Plan Map. Both the staff and Planning Commission can see problems with the changing of the General Land Use Plan Mapand Zoning Map to permit higher density housing prior to the market being ready. This would create an uncomfortable situation for a property owner owning a parcel that was planned and zoned different from the existing use. How long would it be before the property would change to the other use? Should the property owner put on a new roof or siding in the meantime? As an alternative, the Planning Commission is proposing that there be a number of criteria that should be evaluated prior to the conversion of an area for higher density housing. The change of the General Land Use Plan Map to allow higher density housing would only be considered if all or most of the criteria can be met. Otherwise, the land use category should remain the same. The following criteria should be met if the property is considered for higher density housing: 1. Does the area have direct access to a collector, minor arterial, or arterial street? This is important because higher density housing does create more trips than low-density housing. Trips from the higher density housing should be directed to the collector or arterial to avoid trips on local streets in residential areas. . 2. Is there adequate capacity on the collector, minor arterial, or arterial street to handle the proposed higher density housing? 3. What are the adjoining land uses? If the adjoining area is low density residential, there should be adequate area for some type of buffering such as berms or landscaping. 4. Where is the nearest city park or open space? Will this provide adequate recreational activities for future residents? 5. Does the area have adequate sanitary sewer and public water available to it? 6. Is there public transit available to the site? 7. Are there adequate sidewalks and trails to the site? 8. Are there services and shopping within walking or biking distance of the site? . 2