Loading...
02-12-96 PC Minutes139 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary. Approval of Minutes -January 22, 1996 MOVED by Lewis, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 22, 1996. minutes as submitted. Informal Public Hearing - Trevilla of Golden Valley P U D No 72 Applicant: Unicare Homes, Inc. Address: 7445 Glenwood Avenue and 7505 Country Club Drive Request: Creation of a P.U.D. which includes the existing nursing care facility located at 7505 Country Club Drive, the demolition of the existing structure at 7445 Glenwood Avenue and the construction of a 60-unit assisted living facility on the 7445 Glenwood Avenue site. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development summarized his staff report to the Planning Commission talking about the removal of the building located at 7445 Glenwood Avenue so a 60-unit assisted living facility can be constructed; the nursing care facility would remain. Mr. Grimes stated that the property is correctly zoned I-4 but the applicant is proceeding through the PUD process because there will be two principal buildings on the site. Mr. Grimes commented on the following issues: Parking Requirements. The required parking is 173 spaces. The application feels that the proposed 124 spaces are adequate. There are approximately 100 people on site at peak shift time, although there is some overlap when shifts change. Mr. Grimes commented that he has been on the site several times and has always seen available parking. At present, there is a parking agreement with Northrup King for additional parking. The proposed assisted living facility will have approximately 5 employees at peak time. The applicant does not anticipate many, if any, of the residents~to have cars on the site. • Proposed Addition. The proposed plans indicate an addition to the nursing home on the west side of the building. This addition would be for a new physical therapy room and new entrance to the nursing home. This addition, when built in the future, will not create any more employees on the site, so additional parking is not anticipated. ~~o Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12,.1996 Page Two • Drainage and Utilities. Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works, has reviewed the plans and feels present drainage will work on the site. There is adequate space for fire trucks to get around. The proposed assisted living facility will be sprinklered. • Building Setback.. All setbacks are being met at this time. • Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan which shows additional plantings along the east and south property line. • Traffic Generation. Staff.does not believe that there will be a significant increase in traffic. There will be fewer trips to and from the site because the pharmacy will be gone. • Subdivision. The applicant is planning on having two separate lots -- one for the existing nursing home and one for the proposed assisted living facility. Mr: Grimes commented that the assisted living facility is a product that has not been provided in Golden Valley. This type of facility should work well and give the people who reside in the facility the comfort of knowing that there is a 24-hour nursing facility next door. Staff is recommending approval for the Planned Unit Development request. Commission Kapsner asked staff to confirm that there would not be a substantial increase in employees with the proposed assisted living facility. Mark Grimes confirmed that the assisted living facility will employee about 5 employees, significantly less than the previous user of the building at 7445 Glenwood Avenue. The applicant, Andrew Palec, representing Unicare Homes, Inc. gave a brief summary of their nursing home business in Minnesota. Mr. Palec commented that Unicare Homes is excited about offering a different kind of service in Golden Valley that will allow residents to remain in their community. Mr. Palec talked about traffic generation stating that there should be minimal traffic with the assisted living facility and is therefore requesting a ratio of 1 to 4 parking spaces per resident vs. the required 1 to 2 ratio. The plan is to get as much parking on the nursing home site where it is needed. Chair Prazak asked about the green space between the assisted living facility and the residential neighborhood to the east. Mr. Palec commented that he sent out notices to the neighborhood regarding a meeting to talk about the proposal. He commented that residents were concerned with landscaping along the east and south property lines. Mr. Palec said he would submit a revised. landscape plan showing more trees when this proposal is reviewed by the City Council. Commissioner Lewis asked if the applicant would be willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping issue. Mr. Palec commented that his organization would be willing to work with the neighbors on reasonable requests for landscaping to meet their comfort level. The commission and applicant talked about the preparation of food and layout of the living area and communal areas of the assisted living facility. 1.41 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Three Commissioner Pentel asked about lighting being placed in the setback areas. Mark Grimes said that lighting is allowed in the setback areas. Commissioner Pentel also asked about the signage for the facility. Mr. Palec said the sign would be a pedestal-type in brick with some kind of illumination. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing Phil Fuhlman, 521 Kelly Drive, believes and hopes this facility will be attractive which will enhance the neighborhood and would be a good contribution to Golden Valley. He is concerned that the mature vegetation on the site (generally in the southeast corner), not be damaged during construction. He would like to see two row of evergreens, 6 feet tall, planted. Mr. Fuhlman also is concerned with the individual air-conditioning unit noise, and erasion of the soil during and after construction. Roland C. Patton, 7442 Olson Hwy. commented on the beautiful natural state of the southeast corner of the lot. He is concerned with garage and debris blowing into his neighborhood from the nursing home. Larry Knutson, 7421 Glenwood Avenue, is concerned with commercial and residential property. abutting his .house and other residentially zoned property. He would like to see everyone's privacy maintained. He would like to see the planting of more mature trees or fencing and the building lowered so .people from the proposed facility are not looking into his back yard and windows. He is also concerned with the existing lack of maintenance along the east side of the property by Unicare. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Mr. Palec addressed the landscape plan and said he would be willing to look at some changes. He said it was in the best interest of the organization to produce an attractive site. Mr. Palec also commented that the neighbors solutions may be good for them but does not work with their proposal. He is not opposed do doing additional landscaping. Mr. Palec addressed Mr. Knutson's concern on privacy in his back yard. Mr. Palec said that Mr. Knutson's property is higher than the proposed assisted living facility and there may be windows facing that direction that look into his back yard. He does not feel that it is his obligation to guarantee privacy on everyone's property and there are degrees of how much can be done. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development commented that the landscaping plan is a preliminary plan and the Commission can request that additional landscaping be included as part of the final plan. Commissioner Pentel asked about the enclosed trash areas which are mentioned in the staff memo but. not shown on the design plan. Mark Grimes commented that the manager of Trevilla, Mr. Larry Vander Poel, is now constructing fencing around the trash containers. The proposed facility and nursing home would share the same trash area but Mr. Grimes questioned whether there couldn't be enclosed trash areas for each building. Chair Prazak commented that he was pleased that the applicant met with the neighboring residents to discuss the proposal. He believes a facility of this nature is needed, is a good option for people, and that this site is an appropriate use. 4_ ~a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Four Commissioner Kapsner commented that he liked the proposal of an assisted living. facility. He feels the neighbors concerns can be addressed. Mr. Kapsner would like to see that as many trees remain on the site as possible and asked staff if there was someone who could address the tree concern on this site. Mark Grimes said he would contact the City Forester, AI Lundstrom, to take a look at the existing trees and make a recommendation on the life of the trees. Mr. Kapsner also commented that the developer should take particular care to reduce soil erosion as much as possible during construction. Commissioner McAleese commented that if the neighbors see soil erosion happening on the site, they need to call the City about these problems. Commissioner Pentel would like to see that atl green space be maintained and groomed throughout the growing season. Ms. Pentel is in favor of putting a condition in the permit with language that says that all green space will be maintained throughout the growing season, that the landscaping will be maintained, and more fir trees will be provided on the site. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Trevilla of Golden Valley P.U.D. No. 72 with the following recommendations: 1) As much vegetation remain on the property as possible during construction and after, 2) all green space be maintained during the growing season, and 3) additional screening along the east and southeast corner be provided using fir or spruce trees. III. Informal Public Hearing -Amendment to JL0 Addition P.U.D. No. 66 Applicant: Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Company Address: 7000 and 7100 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: Change certain conditions in the existing P.U.D. Permit relative to delaying or eliminating certain site improvements Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief summary of his staff report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grimes talked about the proposed facelift to the main building, the proposed Infiniti addition and landscaping. He said that Mr. Lupient is requesting this amendment because he will not be able to complete certain site improvements which are outlined in the original P.U.D. Permit approved by the City Council on April 18, 1995. The City requested Mr. Lupient submit of Letter of Credit and personal guarantee the he would make some improvements to the site. Director Grimes told the Commission that the planned changes to the site would be the construction of the Inifiniti building, along with landscaping, a reduced amount of repaving and placement of curb and gutter -- new curb and gutter will be placed only around the new Infiniti building and along Market Street. There will also be beefed-up landscaping along the west side of the lot. The lighting plan has been scratched at this time. 1 1:43 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Five Commissioner Pentel asked how many pylon signs will be on the site and Mr. Grimes said three pylon signs which is what the permit now states. Mr. Grimes also said that City staff needs to review. all signage on the site to insure that it meets the city sign ordinances. Commissioner Groger asked if the setback areas would be met. Director Grimes said the setback will be met on the west side of the lot except where the turn around will be located in the front of the Infiniti building. The Infiniti building will meet all setback requirements. Director Grimes said that no other buildings on the lot meet required setbacks. Also, most of the parking areas do not meet the setback requirements found in the Industrial Zoning District. Doug Sailor, representative for the Jim .Lupient Oldsmobile Company, talked about the proposed Infiniti dealership and that Mr. Lupient had decided, some time ago, to wait on the upgrading of the site until after the I-394 construction. Mr. Sailor commented that the Infiniti dealership site is very small and will have a low intensity use. He also commented on the main building, saying that Oldsmobile wants to upgrade the main building by the year 2000 and this was a motivating factor to upgrade the entire site. Mr. Sailor said that a critical mistake was made when Lupient did not factor in all the cost for doing the site improvements as stipulated in the PUD. These total costs for~site improvements cannot be financed. Commissioner Kapsner talked about his concern at the Market Street entrance to the site. He believes the landscaping around the entrance should be maintained. Commissioner Kapsner asked if some curb and gutter work would be done. Mr. Sailor commented that curb and gutter would be placed along the west side of the lot and to the front of the Infiniti dealership and at the entrance to Market Street. Chair Prazak asked what area of the parking lot would not be repaved. Mr. Sailor said repaving would be done around the Infiniti dealership and that the remainder of the parking lot would be seal coated and striped. Some blacktop would have to be replaced where utility work is done. Commissioner Groger asked about green space along Market Street. Mr. Sailor said the plan looks a little deceiving but there will be a 35 foot setback that will be landscaped. Commissioner Pentel asked about new lighting standards which would be located around the Infiniti dealership.. Mr. Sailor commented that no new lighting standards will be erected at this time; and in fact, six lights have been removed. He also said that eventually all the lighting would be replaced. Chair Prazak commented that he was concerned with all the cutbacks in landscaping . Director Grimes said that the applicant is not cutting back on the previously approved green space along the west side of the lot which is in the original PUD package. Commissioner Groger asked which areas of the lot. are subject to flooding. Mr. Sailor commented that there is flooding in front of the building to the east, which. has been a problem area but usually occurs only twice a year. Mr. Sailor also said that the drainage from the site will connect to both the MnDOT drainage system and to an existing pipe along Market Street. 1~4 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Six Commission Groger also asked about the traffic flow through the property which was a concern when the application came before the Commission late last summer. Mr. Sailor said they have widened the entrance drive to Market Street and they will be restriping. Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works, commented that there may be a problem with the surcharging in the pipe and that Mr. Lupient needs to understand that the City is not responsible for water in his parking lot if the drainage system on-site over flows. Commissioner Kapsner commented that the applicant is not proposing anything that is different from the original P.U.D. application. He continued by saying that the land is peaty and the lot will probably need fixing in the next 5 or 10 years. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner McAleese feels there are two issues before the Planning Commission; a planning issue which is relatively minor and a policy issue. Commissioner McAleese is concerned that the system did not work correctly in that a policy was decided by making an agreement with Mr. Lupient before the amendment came back to the Planning Commission which he feels is only a technical housing cleaning issue. Commissioner McAleese feels that because the City Council gave the go ahead through the Letter of Credit and personal guarantee, the. Planning Commission is bound to approve the amended plans. Commissioner McAleese noted that the City Engineer's concern about flooding should be added to any permit change. Commissioner Groger felt that the issue before the Planning Commission had already been approved before coming to the Planning Commission because of the Letter of Credit being accepted and a permit issued for the Infiniti building. He is concerned with the fact that the applicant could not meet his deadline to complete improvements to the site. He is also concerned that Mr. Lupient proceeded to amend his PUD permit before the Commission had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Grimes commented that the issue was that Mr. Lupient was not going to get the improvements done before the deadline of November 15 and there was not enough time to bring the plan back to the Commission before the deadline. The Council met with Mr. Lupient, in late 1995, and the outcome was a Letter of Credit and personal guarantee to do certain improvements if the building permit for Infiniti was issued. Mr. Lupient also agreed to amend the PUD indicating his reduced plans. Director Grimes commented that Mr. Lupient is operating under the current PUD and that the Planning Commission can recommend not to approve the amendment to JLO Addition P.U.D. No. 66. Mr. Sailor commented that the Letter of Credit needs to be interpreted by the attorneys on what the letter guarantees and what improvements need to be made. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said she believes the correct action would be that the City has the right not to issue an occupancy permit if the amendment fails. 1 145{ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Seven Commissioner McAleese iterated what City Planner Knoblauch said that if the amendment is denied the Infiniti Dealership cannot be occupied. Mr. Sailor commented that in .reality, that if the City denies the amendment, the Infiniti building construction would stop and Mr. Lupient would take the loss-- he cannot afford $700,000 in improvements . Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works commented that the agreement provided for certain improvements, ie landscaping and storm sewer improvements. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he believes that Mr. Lupient did not try to pull a fast one on the City when he came in with the. PUD request and that he made an honest error in cost calculation. Commissioner Kapsner believes this is a viable project and the City should work with him. Chair Prazak and Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Kapsner. Chair Prazak said that once the Infiniti building and landscaping is completed, Mr. Lupient will have an incentive to complete improvements to the property. Commissioner Groger said he could not support the amendment because the. property is nonconforming per City Code and aesthetically nonconforming. He continued by saying that by creating a PUD to allow for an additional building on an already crowded lot causes a problem and sets a dangerous precedent in the City. The applicant is getting another building. on a nonconforming building. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to recommend approval to the City Council for the amendment to JLO Addition P.U.D. No. 66 with the following two conditions: 1) the landscaping plans for the west side of the property reflect the original PUD landscape plan submitted and 2) the City is not responsible for flooding on the Jim Lupient Oldsmobile site because of the drainage system chosen to serve the site by Lupient. (Commissioner Lewis left the meeting at 9:20pm.) IV. Review of Ca itp al Improvement Program (CIP Don Taylor, Finance Director and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works were available to answer questions from the Planning Commission regarding the CIP. Commissioner Pentel asked if the City Council had already approved the spending of $895,000 for the Schaper Property. Mr. Taylor said no that this money is budgeted through Park Improvements found on Page 84 of the CIP. Mr. Taylor said the Council is in the process of dealing with this issue. He requested that this issue be left in the CIP because staff must anticipate what is going to happen with the property. Commissioner Pentel believes that the Schaper Property is more of a Comprehensive Land Use issue. MOVED by Pentel,-seconded by McAleese to remove this issue from the CIP. ., Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 1996 Page Eight Commissioner Kapsner commented on the shortfall of money for the. schools and asked Mr. Taylor what he sees for the future of city regarding state funding in the next two to four years. Mr. Taylor commented:#hat homestead and HACA helps reduce the tax levy burden on tax payers. He believes the revenue picture. is looking better but the City can expect to see reductions in the amount of state aid received. Commissioner Kapsner said he was concerned with the motion that Commissioner Pentel made to remove the Schaper Property item from the CIP. Mr. Taylor said he would like to remain in the CIP so the property can be planned for. Mr. Taylor also said that the Planning Commission can make the City Council aware of their concerns through this review process. Commissioner McAleese asked staff what purpose the Planning Commission played if the Commission isn't making any changes. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, commented that the CIP is a planning document and therefore needs to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner McAleese said he believes that if the item is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the document should not be approved. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Johnson and motion carried by a vote of 4-2 to recommend to the City Council approval of the Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Pentel asked about expenditures on sidewalk improvements. Fred Salsbury commented that there are problems with constructing sidewalks because there are many areas in the City where residents do not want sidewalks. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given due. VI. Other Business -Visit with Mayor Mary Anderson and Council Member Jan LeSuer Mayor Anderson and Member LeSuer talked with the Planning Commission about Commission meetings being cable cast which will begin sometime in 1996. Mayor Anderson and Member LeSuer briefly talked about the Hidden Lakes Planned Unit Development with the Commission. VII. Adjournment Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 10:05pm. Jean Lewis, Secretary