Loading...
01-12-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 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 January 12, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes December 22, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting - Eck and Groger noted several miscellaneous typographical and grammatical errors that they wish to see corrected. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Groger and motion carried to approve the December 22, 2003 minutes as corrected. II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD 97 - Sunrise of Golden Valley Applicant: Sunrise Development and Infinity Motel Holdings, LLC 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 and existing 32,000 square foot office building - Grimes explained that this proposed assisted living facility would be located on the former White House/Golden Valley Inn site. He stated that the site is approximately 5.5 to 6 acres. He said that the Golden Valley Inn was removed by the City several years ago due to its hazardous condition and the cost of removal was assessed back to the owner of the property. He said there is already a 2-story, Edina Realty office building on the east lot of the property. It was built under normal zoning regulations and meets all the setback requirements. He explained that the two buildings would be combined into the PUD with a lot for each building. There would be a cross parking arrangement. Pentel asked if doing a PUD for this proposal would blur the property lines between the two lots. Grimes explained that the two applicants are doing a land trade. The site where the office building is now located will be reduced by .33 acres and added to the new lot for the Sunrise building and about .42 acres will be added to the Edina Realty office from the Sunrise lot just west of the office building along Olson Memorial Highway. Pentel stated that originally the Edina Realty building met all the setback requirements and asked how the building would be meeting all of the requirements internally on the lot. Grimes said that the Edina Realty building would meet all setback requirements if it were Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 2 in the Commercial zoning district except where there is the shared driveway with the Sunrise property. Eck asked why the office building needs to be a part of this proposed PUD. Grimes explained that the proposal qualifies as a PUD because they are sharing an access, it is in a re-development district, it is a mixed use development with office and residential uses, it's a more efficient use of the land and there are extreme setback requirements due to the fact that there are streets on four sides of the property. Pentel asked if the same developer that developed the Edina Realty building is developing the Sunrise building. Grimes said no, they are separate entities. e Grimes explained that the Sunrise development wouldn't create a great amount of traffic, it will have great landscaping, it's an attractive building and their facilities in Roseville and Edina have been successful. Eck asked if the Sunrise property would need to be rezoned. Grimes stated yes, the whole site is presently zoned Commercial. He said that the City Attorney has recommended that both the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map be amended prior to approval of the General Plan of Development. Eck asked if part of the property would then be zoned Commercial and the other part would be zoned Institutional. Grimes said the properties would probably be zoned Commercial and Higher Density Housing. Eck asked if was unusual to have one PUD with two zoning districts in it. Grimes said it is not unusual and gave Wesley Commons as an example. He explained that the property shouldn't be rezoned until after the preliminary PUD application is approved because if the developer were to abandon the PUD the City would be left with property guided and zoned for a development that may never be built. e Pentel r~ferred to the eight foot sidewalk shown on the plans and asked if it was going to be on the applicant's property or the City's. Grimes said it would be in City right-of-way on Ottawa Avenue and would extend to Highway 55. He added that there would not be a pedestrian crossing at the north part of the site. Pentel asked if there would be a sidewalk connection from the site to Schaper Park. Pentel asked if the Public Works Department had talked about putting a stop sign on the west side of the site at the intersection of Schaper Road and the Lilac Drive Frontage Road. Grimes said if the location warrants a stop sign Public Works would install one. Pentel asked about the proposed lighting plan. Grimes referred to the plans and stated that they indicate poles that would direct light downward. He suggested asking the applicant where on the site the lighting will be located. Pentel asked if the sign for the site was going to be a monument sign. Grimes said he didn't know, but that all of the sign age would have to meet the Sign Code requirements. Keysser asked if Sunrise Development is going to buy the site. Grimes said he thinks Sunrise is going to buy their property from Infinity. Keysser asked if Sunrise would be buying the property at market rate. Grimes said he didn't know but that he could possibly find out. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 3 Laura Hester, representing Sunrise Development, stated that Sunrise is one of the oldest assisted living companies and has 340 homes across the U.S., Canada and the UK. She said they have cared for 40,000 residents since the company started in 1981 and the owners opened it based on the Dutch model, which is more of a residential model. She explained the reason they looked at Golden Valley as a location is because there are a substantial number of seniors and those already caring for seniors in their homes. She said they hope to offer a home like atmosphere and that their care falls between independent living and nursing home care. They provide meals, housekeeping, transportation and the typical age of a resident is 83. e Pentel asked Hester if they provide residents help with dressing. Hester said they do provide help with bathing, grooming and dressing if desired by the resident. She discussed their principles of service and stated that they offer a five star training course for all of their employees. She explained the reminiscence program they offer for people with dementia and said they encourage activity in the community. She showed the Planning Commissioners pictures of a facility including a foyer, a 3-season porch and a bistro area and said that 40% of the homes are made up of common areas in order to encourage socializing. Pentel asked if Sunrise offers volunteer activities for youth. Hester said yes and stated that there are formal volunteer opportunities with training and that there are programs through the schools with lots of opportunities to volunteer. e Hester referred to the site plans and noted that there are benches every 150 feet outside because it is important to Sunrise to offer a park like atmosphere. She explained that most of the residents would probably be too frail to be able to walk to Schaper Park and that it is more likely that a van would take them there. She explained that there would be a sidewalk connection to Schaper Park on the west side of the site, but not on the north side of the site because of the safety concerns of having a cross walk in the middle of a block. Pentel asked why bituminous material was chosen instead of concrete for the sidewalks. Grimes said that it is easier to maintain and it is a better material for walkers and bikers. Pentel asked who would be responsible for the sidewalks. Grimes said they would be built by the developer and maintained by the City. All internal walks would be maintained by the developer. Pentel referred to the landscape plan and said she was concerned about the plantings being recommended for the memory garden on the northeast side of the building. Grimes said that the City's Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom would be reviewing the landscape plans and the plant materials. Grimes referred to the plans and noted that all of the building's equipment is hidden on the roof. Pentel asked if there were any plans to have lighting that would shine up at the building. Hester stated no and explained that there is site lighting and pathway lighting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 4 Hester explained that the traffic impact would be very minimal because the employees don't work normal shift hours and the only days there is really a need for overflow parking is on Mothers Day and Christmas and they have an agreement with Infinity to use their parking lot. Keysser asked Hester about the Dutch model she referred to earlier. Hester stated that the Dutch have always offered a more residential model where residents have their own gardens and it feels less institutional. Pentel referred to the catch basin that Jeff Oliver wrote about on page five of his memo. Grimes explained that he is referring to the catch basin in the joint driveway between the two lots. e Pentel referred to the .42 acres between the two lots on the south side of the property and asked what could be put there. Grimes said that area would be used for additional parking. Pentel asked how many employees Sunrise would have. Hester stated that they would have a total of 60 employees, but there would be no more than 27 employees at anyone time. Pentel asked what the residents do for their pharmacy needs. Hester explained that the resident's prescriptions are delivered by mail and small delivery vehicles and that food is delivered twice a week to the north side of the building. Pentel stated that it is her understanding that the Edina Realty building is one-half to one- third full and that parking has not been an issue because it is not fully occupied. e Scott Schmidt, Clearwater Development, representing the Infinity Office Building, stated that the office building is one-third full and that they have a lease agreement with Edina Realty to provide an adequate number of parking spaces. Pentel opened the public hearing. Jerry Mundt, 4212 Poplar Drive, Managing Partner of Pondwood Office Park and retired architect, stated that he's worked a lot with senior housing and assisted living facilities. He asked if one reason for doing this project as a PUD is so the applicant won't have to follow the more stringent setback requirements on the west and north sides of the property. Grimes explained that the City does not have any parking requirements for senior housing so this project would have had to meet the parking requirements for an apartment building which would be 150 spaces and that is not practical for an assisted living facility because almost all of the residents do not own cars. Pentel said that the question is, if by creating a PUD, are we making it so the applicant won't have to follow the setback requirements. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 5 Grimes explained that the only variance is for a parking setback along Schaper Road. He said that the applicant has a right to apply for a PUD because it meets several of the criteria for consideration to be a PUD such as the fact that it is in the North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment District. Mundt referred to the site plans and asked if the lot between Edina Realty and Sunrise is going to be developed. Pentel explained that area is going to become parking space and that it is not a requirement by the City rather a lease agreement that requires this area be parking. Grimes added that it is not unusual for companies to provide more parking than what is required. Mundt stated that the Sunrise development seems to be placed a little "tight" on the site. He said the parking lot is on the most desirable part of the site, the side facing the park. He said he would rather see the plans "flipped" over and the building moved further away from Highway 55. He explained that assisted living facilities began in Minnesota about 15 years ago and were usually attached to a nursing home and that in the last few years stand alone facilities have been having financial difficulties. He said he is concerned about the services at Sunrise including Medicare and nursing care and who regulates the licensing. He asked if Sunrise has done a market feasibility study. He asked if it is a wood constructed building and what type of construction is being proposed and said he would like to see brick or stone used. He added that he has no objection to the type of use being proposed on this site and complimented the applicant on the design of the building. Pentel asked if the residents on Killarny Drive were sent notice of this meeting. Grimes stated that if they were within the 500-foot radius they should have received a notice. Hester explained that Sunrise is not a nursing home, but rather an assisted living facility. She said that they have done a very exhaustive market study that has shown there is a significant need in this community. She added that they have a full time nurse on staff as well as an LPN and trained medical mangers. Pentel asked how it is determined that a resident is no longer capable of living in their assisted living facility. Hester said they make every effort to help residents stay as long as possible and that assessments are made by the nurse with the family and the family's physician and the residents themselves. Pentel asked Hester to address the questions asked by Mr. Mundt about the building. Hester explained that the building is steel framed, fully sprinklered and has 2-hour fire separation between each floor. Mundt asked about the regulations regarding assisted living units today as well as "flipping" the orientation of the building around on the site. Hester explained that the State licenses the care part of the program only and that the County regulates the food programs. Pentel asked if the State regulates the size of the rooms. Hester said she didn't believe so and explained that they offer a variety of room sizes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 6 Hester explained that there are very few Sunrise facilities with parking in the front and it is very intentional so that all of the parking will not be at the front door. She said the Victorian architecture is clapboard siding and when all brick is used it makes the building seem very massive. She said she would entertain the City's thoughts regarding the building materials. Grimes said that he feels that is the Board of Building Review's decision. Mundt asked what the projected rental cost for a studio room would be. Hester said a private single room would be approximately $3,500 per month plus $1,000 per month for dementia care if needed. She said that Medicare and Medicaid do not recognize assisted living. e Pentel closed the public hearing. Groger said he thinks it is a good use for the site and that the impact to traffic would be minimal. He said it has the best landscaping plan he's seen and that it will be a positive addition to the community and the City. He added that he has no problem with the proposal being a PUD because it meets at least two of the criteria to be a PUD. Eck said he agreed with Groger and that he has no problem with the Sunrise site being a PUD but he still didn't understand why the office building needs to be a part of the PUD. Grimes explained that there really is no other way to handle the shared driveway situation. Groger said that he would be concerned if Infinity would want to make changes, but with a PUD the City has more control. Keysser said he agreed with Groger and stated that this is an exceptional proposal and it is quite beautiful. e McAleese stated he will be supporting the proposal. He said that he is not a big fan of PUDs but he doesn't see a down side to this one. Pentel said she thinks this is a wonderful proposal and she is very happy to see the extension of the sidewalks. She said she is very pleased with the detail and the quality of the project and that she really appreciated City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo that was attached to the staff report. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of PUD 97 which would allow for two lots. One lot would be for the construction of a 3-story, 80 unit senior assisted living facility and one lot would be for an existing 32,000 square foot office building. -- Short Recess -- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 7 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel stated that since the Planning Commission has not yet elected a vice-chair, she would attend the January 27, 2004 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. She asked that the election of a vice-chair be added to the next Planning Commission agenda. III. Other Business Discuss higher density housing criteria. e Grimes referred to the memo he wrote regarding criteria or questions that the City should consider when there are proposals to change the Comprehensive Plan Map for higher density housing. He asked the Commissioners for some direction on what they would like to see added or changed on list of criteria. Pentel suggested being better about requiring proposals to have better open space areas shown on their plans. Pentel referred to number six on Grimes' memo regarding public transit being available to the site and suggested that it ask how public transit is integrated into the site. Keysser referred to number eight on Grimes' memo regarding services and shopping being within walking distance of the site and stated that Golden Valley is not really a walking community. Grimes stated that he is not saying that people should have to meet 100% of the criteria on the list. e Rasmussen said she thought the list of criteria was good. Groger referred to number three on Grimes' memo and suggested adding something regarding how housing developments would be buffered from Industrial areas. He also suggested the idea of utilizing higher density housing in areas where the City wants to encourage redevelopment. Pentel referred to the last Planning Commission meeting and asked Grimes when the issues regarding the Comprehensive Plan Map changes would be coming back to the Planning Commission. Grimes said he felt it best to have the City Attorney present at the meeting when the Comprehensive Plan Map changes were discussed and the City Attorney isn't available until the January 26 Planning Commission meeting. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm.