Loading...
10-08-12 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Gonference Room Monday, October 8, 2012 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes September 10, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Brainstorming 3. RepoHs on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjoumment ° This dacument is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call � ' 763-5R3°8006{TTY: 7b3-593-3968}ta make a request. Examples of alternate formats ' rnay include large print,electronic,Braille,audiacassette,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Vailey City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 10, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser, Also present were Director of Planning �ind Devel�pment Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Ass�stanti�isa Wittman. . Commissioner Cera was absent. ���°� 1. Approval of Minutes August 27, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 27, 2012 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan aeview= Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson MemQrial Highway - The Tiburon — PU-111 Applicant: Tiburon 55, LL� Address: 9130 & 9220 OfsQn Memorial Highway Purpose: To allovi�:for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate �partmenf building. Hogeboom referred to a IQ�afion map and stated that the applicant is proposing to build a six-story, 142-unit; �narki�t rate apartment building at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial Highway w�`��h is 2.7 acres in size. He added that these properties have recently been rezoned from Comme�eial to High Density R-4 Residential and they are in the pracess of being redesignated on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Density Residential. He explained that the proposal would vary from the requirements of the City Code and is being considered as a PUD for the following reasons: 1) The R-4 Zoning District allows a five-story maximum height, the applicant is proposing six stories, 2) the R-4 Zoning District allows no more than 60% of a lot to be covered by impervious surface, the developer would be covering 77% of the site with impervious surface, 3) the applicant is seeking to vary slightly from parking dimension requirements to allow better traffic flow and more efficient parking locations on the site, 4) the R-4 Zoning District requires a 25-foot front yard setback, the applicant is proposing a 15-foot front yard setback requirement along Highway 55. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 2 Hogeboom referred to a map of a larger area and explained that the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has requested that staff focus redevelopment efforts in this area. The HRA will meet this month to discuss road improvements, pedestrian access and property rehabilitation for the area along Golden Valley Road between Boone Avenue and Mendelssohn Avenue. The HRA will consider creating a special redevelopment district that would enable the use of certain public financing tools for public improvements. Hogeboom showed the Commissioners an illustration of the proposed apartment building and explained that the property will have a Golden Valley Road address aa�d most of the parking will be underground. He added that this Preliminary Plan revi�w is to ap�rove the concept, not necessarily the specific landscaping, fa�ade material, etc. as those'i�sue can change between the preliminary and final stages. He stated that �t�ff is recomm�n�ling approval of the proposed plan with the following conditions: ,,, �� 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part o`�this app�oval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Qeputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Plar�ning and Development dated September 5, 2012, shall become part of this appraval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.' 4. A Park Dedication Fee of $16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 5. All signs on the property must meet#he re,quirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all�pther st�te, f��#eral, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over th�s;tlevelopment. Waldhauser referred to th� Deputy Fire Marshal staff report and questioned the narrowness of the access road for fire equipment. Hogeboom explained that the Deputy Fire Marshal will work with the ap,plicant, during the construction phase, on fire code issues. °���, � Waldhauser��sked if the:�ity has any responsibility regarding the Pollution Control Agency,,'� cor��e�rnsr����t�raffic noise. Hogeboom stated that cities are required to carefully �ns�d�r the I'd�ation of residential developments and to avoid negative impacts of'noise when possible. He added that MnDOT has reviewed the plans and have�made it clear fhat they are not responsible for noise mitigation on projects that are built adjacent t� existing highways. Waldhauser asked at what point a barrier between Olson Memorial Highway (TH 55) and this development will be designed. Hogeboom referred to MnDOT's policy regarding sound walls and explained that it is their policy to construct a sound barrier when road construction projects happen near existing residential properties, but they don't construct sound barriers when a new residential development is built adjacent to existing highways. Waldhauser referred to an existing fence that is around this area now and questioned why it is there and if it would have to be retained. Hogeboom said he didn't know and suggested the applicant address that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 3 Kisch asked about the impervious surface requirements of comparable projects in other zoning districts. Hogeboom stated that most R-4 projects are done through the PUD process which typically varies from the requirements of the Zoning Code. He said he can't think of any comparable existing properties however there are some proposed projects pending that are considering having more impervious surface than this project due to the size of the parcels. Waldhauser added that the Mixed Use zoning district allows more impervious surFace. Grimes added that the impervious surface requirements don't exempt projects from the water quality requirements. Hogeboom noted that much of the green space in this project is Highway 55 right-of-way which doesn't count in the impervious surFace calculations, but is green space adjacent to the development. Kluchka asked what the applicant could build on this property w�ithout,using the-PUD process. Hogeboom said they could build a four-story buildin�, the�could not exceed 60% total impervious surface, they would have to meet the parking �,i,men.��in requirements and they would have a 25-foot front yard�s�tback�����requi'r�em�nt. Grimes explained that this parcel is a remnant property from wheri Mighv�ay 55'was constructed so this is a unique site that will require variances Qr a PUD to develop. r� Waldhauser asked if the proposed building will a�ect access or visibility for surrounding property owners. Hogeboom said the visibility'`c�f Na�ional Gamera will actually be improved with this development. He ad�ed that property awners within 500 feet received hearing notices. Steve Dunbar, Tiburon 55 LLC, Applican#, shawed the commissioners illustrations of the propased development and discussed the various amenities they will offer such as a courtyard, a grill area, underground parking, a bike room, conference room, theater, fitness center and storage t�nits fot- each �resident as well as a full size washer and dryer in each unit. Schmidgall qusstioned the n�mber of units in the building because the narrative states there will be 14�'units but he caunted 144 units on the plans. Dunbar clarified that they intend to hav� 142 units and 142 enclosed parking stalls. Waldha�r�er stated that the narrative refers to a green roof, but the plans don't show a gre�n roof.'Dun�ar explained that the narrative and pians are referring to the green courlyard area. Kisch nofetl,that the parking ratio is 1.5 stalls per unit and asked Dunbar if that is comparable to other products they market. Dunbar stated that their typical ratio is 1 for 1, however 1.5 is more flexible. Kisch noted that if some of the parking spaces along Golden Valley Road were removed they could add more green space to the proposal. Dunbar said he would be happy to work with the City regarding additional green space. Kisch asked about the height of the first floor wall shown on the plans. Noah Bly, UrbanWorks Architecture, representing the applicant, stated that the wall is 11' 2". He added that they really can't reduce the parking very much but they may be able to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 4 remove a few spaces in order to get more green space. Kisch asked Bly if they would be comfortable changing the parking ratio to 1.25 spaces per unit. Grimes noted that there is no parking allowed on Golden Valley Road so he is concerned about this proposal not having enough parking spaces. Waldhauser questioned if an off-site parking arrangement could be considered. Dunbar said he doesn't anticipate needing off-site parking. Kisch said he would like to encourage the applicant to reduce the 77% of impervious surface they are proposing. He referred to the height parking plinth and ��l�ed..if it could be lowered by 5 or 6 feet. Bly said lowering it could cause problems wi�ti�gettin� �eople into the parking area. He said he would work on ways to get some more,greenery:along that wall. Schmidgall said he would be inclined to cut the applicant some sl;ack in r�gard to impervious surface coverage because they are proposing underground water' '' management as welL Waldhauser asked Dunbar about the noise from Highway 55. C�unbar said they have ways of mitigating the noise including installing high quali�r wi:ndows. Kluchka asked about pedestrian amenities and birke racks.;Dunbar explained that there is a bike room and showed pictures of what it will (ook like. He added that there will also be a bike rack installed above each parking st�ll alang the exterior wall of the parking garage. Bly discussed the sidewalks and�`pede���ian con�r�ctions. Kluchka said he would like a condition of approval add�d �t� tf�� recammendation that there be a sidewalk leading to the front entrance: B{y said he would integrate that sidewalk into the pedestrian plan. He added that t�ey car��also ins,tall an exterior bike rack. Kluchka asked the applicants to ��esCribe their landscaping plans. Dunbar reviewed the landscaping plans with th�;�omrnrssion.�1�Valdhauser said it is odd there are no evergreen plants on the plan�,'�rimes noted that there is not a lot of room along Golden Valley Road to add lands�aping��nd a sidewalk. Bly said there is some room available to add more landscaping. Kluchka�'asked the developer if they would be able integrate their landscape plans with what'has already been done as part of the City's lilac planting initiative. Dunbar said y�s. Kluchka said he would like to add that as a condition of approval. Hogebt�orn s�id he would talk to the City's Forester. Kluchka asked if there will be any LEED status with this project. Dunbar said no. Kluchka asked the applicant to speak to the fence issue Waldhauser discussed earlier. Dunbar sai�# they don't plan on disturbing the existing fence at all. Waldhauser asked Dunbar if his firm will retain ownership of the property. Dunbar said yes. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 5 MOVED by Schmidgall and seconded by McCarty to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD request with the conditions listed in the staff repo�t. Hogeboom explained that he would like to add a condition to the recommendation which states that the Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will work together to look for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the Tiburon development. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, or a similar redevelopment district. � i Kisch said he would also like to add the conditions that Kluchka sugges#�d and he would also like to add a condition to encourage the applicant to reduc� the amount impervious surface. Kluchka summarized his proposed conditions as follows: 1) e�su:re the Planning Commission has design approval as well as approval over th�Ema�erials used, 2) ensure landscaping approval and integration with the City's lilac plantir��s and 3j ensure approval of the pedestrian access design. Kisch reiterated his suggestion about adding a condition that encourages a reduction in the amount of impervious surface. Schmidgall said he disagrees with requiring the applicant to reduce the amaunt of impervaous`�urface. Segel'baum asked Kisch if he was referring ta covering up the first floor wall a'Iittle bit more. Kisch said no, that would be landscaping. Waldhauser said she also wt�uld not support a decrease in impervious surface because this is a "tight site" that:is difficult to develop. She added that she would however support more green space, landscaping and screening. Segelbaum agreed. � `� �� { Waldhauser said she is cota�use�`as to fhe actual fa�ade materials being proposed and added that she would.like sort��fhing like was shown in the illustrations. Kluchka said hezdoesn't wa����to gct into a situation like the Menard's proposal�where � the Planning Coi�amissio�°�ias no say in the design. He said he wants the ability to influence tl�e;design<<,Scfimidgall stated that there will be economic pressure to make sure the building is attractive. Segelbaum questioned how the Planning Commission could req[aire d�sign standards. Hogeboom explained that Menard's was different because their use was grandfathered-in. Kluchka said he is trying to set some precedent and be consistent with what they require. McCarty asked Kluchka if he wants the Planning Commission to say what materials the applicant can use. Kluchka said no, he wants a tool in the PUD process that allows the Planning Commission to say they like the design. McCarty said that is totally subjective. Kluchka said that the applicant is asking for variances so the Planning Commission should have a say regarding the design. Segelbaum noted that the applicant isn't at the final design plan stage. Kluchka said he wants the design specified. Kisch suggested saying that as part of the Final Plan review the Planning Commission wants the materials specified. McCarty noted that all of the materials are already listed in the Preliminary plans. Waldhauser noted that the plans and the narrative are different and added that it would probably be better for the Planning Commission not to approve the materials. Kluchka said he want the ability to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 6 have an influence on the design. Grimes suggested the Planning Commission review the entire PUD ordinance and decide if they would like to amend it. Segelbaum said he believes the concept that the Planning Commission is reviewing at this meeting is what they are recommending for approval so it is good to talk about it at this stage in the process. Schmidgall clarified what has already been moved and seconded as follows: the conditions listed in the staff report with the addition of the Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority working together regarding TIF, landscape enhancing and integration with existing lilac plantings and improved p�destrian access from Galden Valley Road. ; MOVED by Kisch to amend the motion to add the three things 5chmidc�all cl�rifiecl. �,� McCarty said he would like to know more about the proposed TIF ��m. Hogeboom explained that the development could move forward wi�QUt the TIF cfi�tri�f being approved but the HRA wants to consider a larger ar�a in�br�ler to,help fund public improvements. McCarty asked about the repercussi�or�s if the Pl�nning Commission doesn't recommend approval of the TIF district. Segelbaum asked if the developer would pay for sidewalks on their own property. Hogeboom said yes and added that sidewalks only on the subject property with na conn�ctions would be unsafe. McCarty seconded the amended mo#ion ad.din�'the �hree additional conditions as discussed. Kluchka asked about smooth-faced coh�rete block. Schmidgall explained that it is concrete block that is smoath or polished looking. Kluchka asked if the rendering reflects what that block would look like since it is the majority of the facing. He reiterated that is something that should b�'looked at. Waldhauser asked for;a vp�e Qn the amended motion. The Commissioners agreed unanimously to re�omrr�,��id approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD 111 with the following ct�nditions�s_ ' 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. �he recot�mei��iations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Ma�shal E���nd�'rson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 5; 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 Page 7 7. The Developer, the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will work together to look for tools to fund public improvements in the general vicinity of the Tiburon development. Tools may include creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, or a similar redevelopment district. 8. The Developer will work to enhance the Landscaping Plan to include more landscaped areas and, if possible, less impervious surfaces. If possible, the Developer wiU coordinate landscaping efforts with the City's Highway 55 Lilac Planting initiative. 9. The Developer will work to include an improved pedestrian connectior� frt�m Golden Valley Road to the front door of the building. , ,r�'� � � --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redeveloprnent Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 4. Other Business The Commissioners discussed the possib�litj�`'of reviewin� the PUD ordinance at a future meeting. Waldhauser reminded the Commissiorr�rs about the MnAPA planning conference at the end of September. 5. Adjoumment � 1 ' � � �. ,�,. The meeting was ad}ourned'at�:20 pm. � David A. Cera, Secretary ���� �� �; Planning Department 763-593-$Q95/763-593-8789(fax) Date: October 1, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Planning Commission Brainstorming Session There are no public hearings planned for the October 8, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Instead, we are holding an informal brainstorming session where we will discuss various topics related to the duties of the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioners are welcome to discuss any items that they feel are relevant to the work of the Commission. Staff recommends discussion of the following issues: • 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule To ease confusion with scheduling, as well as to better coordinate public hearings with City Council meetings, staff proposes to reduce to the number of monthly Planning Commission meetings to one meeting per month, beginning in 2013. This would be in line with practices in neighboring communities and would better respect Planning Commissioners' and staff's personal schedules and outside obligations. , • PUD Process Planning Commissioners have recently inquired into the PUD approval process, and whether or not it could be modified to allow greater control over site design elements and landscaping requirements. Staff would like to have a conversation with the Commission to better understand what, specifically, the Planning Commission would like to see changed about the process. • Solar Access Ordinance Staff has become aware of a possible opportunity to receive free assistance in drafting a solar energy access ordinance. Current regulations may need to be updated as trends and technology change, and this may be a good opportunity to evaluate the City's regulations. Staff looks to the Planning Commission for guidance on this matter. • Tree House/Play Structure Regulations The City occasionally receives complaints about tree houses, forts, swing sets, and play structures that are perceived to be too tall, too close to the property line, etc. The City does not have any official rules on play structures. However, it has been the policy of the City to allow play structures and not consider them to be accessory structures. There are instances where play structures are intrusive to neighbors. Some neighboring communities do have special regulations for play structures. Staff would like to discuss creating regulations for play structures and would like input from the Planning Commission regarding potential height, setbacks, building requirements, etc.