Loading...
09-10-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 10, 2012 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, 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 and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa 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 Review — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway - The Tiburon — PU-111 Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC Address: 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building. Hogeboom referred to a location map and stated that the applicant is proposin� to build a six-story, 142-unit, market rate apartment building at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial Highway which is 2.7 acres in size. He added that these properties have recently been rezoned from Commercial to High Density R-4 Residential and they are in the process of being redesignated on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to High Qensity 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 �eeking 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 and most of the parking wilt be underground. He added that this Preliminary Plan review is to approve the concept, not necessarily the specific landscaping, fa�ade material, etc. as those issue can change between the preliminary and final stages. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed plan with the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson 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. Waldhauser referred to the 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 applicant, during the construction phase, on fire code issues. Waldhauser asked if the City has any responsibility regarding the Pollution Control Agency's concerns about traffic noise. Hogeboom stated that cities are required to carefully consider the location 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 that they are not responsible for noise mitigation on projects that are built adjacent to 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 1 Q, 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 ta the development. Kluchka asked what the applicant could build on this property without using the PUD process. Hogeboom said they could build a four-story building, they could not exceed 60% total impervious surface, they would have to meet the parking dimension requirements and they would have a 25-foot front yard setback requirement. Grimes explained that this parcel is a remnant property from when Highway 55 was constructed so this is a unique site that will require variances or aPUD to develop, Waldhauser asked if the proposed building will affect access or visibility for surrounding property owners. Hogeboom said the visibility of National Camera will actually be improved with this development. He added that property owners within 500 feet received hearing notices. Steve Dunbar, Tiburon 55 LLC, Applicant, showed the commissioners illustrations of the proposed 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 units for each resident as well as a full size washer and dryer in each unit. Schmidgall questioned the number of units in the building because the narrative states there will be 142 units but he counted 144 units on the plans. Dunbar clarified that they intend to have 142 units and 142 enclosed parking stalls. Waldhauser stated that the narrative refers to a green roof, but the plans don't show a green roof. Dunbar explained that the narrative and plans are referring to the green courtyard area. Kisch noted 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 asked if it could be lowered by 5 or 6 feet. Bly said lowering it could cause problems with getting people 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 slack in regard to impervious surFace coverage because they are proposing underground water management as well. Waldhauser asked Dunbar about the noise from Highway 55. Dunbar said they have ways of mitigating the noise including installing high quality windows. Kluchka asked about pedestrian amenities and bike racks. Dunbar explained that there is a bike room and showed pictures of what it will look like. He added that there will also be a bike rack installed above each parking stall along the exterior wall of the parking garage. Bly discussed the sidewalks and pedestrian connections. Kluchka said he would like a condition of approval added to the recommendation that there be a sidewalk leading to the front entrance. Bly said he would integrate that sidewalk into the pedestrian plan. He added that they can also install an exterior bike rack. Kluchka asked the applicants to describe their landscaping plans. Dunbar reviewed the landscaping plans with the Commission. Waldhauser said it is odd there are no evergreen plants on the plans. Grimes noted that there is not a lot of room along Golden Valley Road to add landscaping and 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 yes. Kluchka said he would like to add that as a condition of approval. Hageboom said 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 said 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 Goiden Valley Planning Commission September 1 Q, 2012 Page 5 MOVED by Schmidgaii and seconded by McCarty to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD request with the conditions listed in the staff report. 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. Kisch said he would also like to add the conditions that Kluchka suggested and he would also like to add a condition to encourage the applicant to reduce the amount impervious surface. Kluchka summarized his proposed conditions as follows: 1) ensure the Planning Commission has design approval as well as approval over the materials used, 2) ensure landscaping approval and integration with the City's lilac plantings and 3) 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 amount of impervious surface. Segelbaum asked Kisch if he was referring to covering up the first floor wall a little bit more. Kisch said no, that would be landscaping. Waldhauser said she also would 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 confused as to the actual fa�ade materials being proposed and added that she would like something like was shown in the illustrations. Kluchka said he doesn't want to get into a situation like the Menard's proposal where the Planning Commission has no say in the design. He said he wants the ability to influence the design. Schmidgall stated that there will be economic pressure to make sure the building is attractive. Segelbaum questioned how the Planning Commission could require design 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 far 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 wants 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 ta 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 Hausing and Redevelopment Authority working together regarding TIF, landscape enhancing and integration with existing lilac plantings and improved pedestrian access from Golden Valley Road. MOVED by Kisch to amend the motion to add the three things Schmidgall clarified. McCarty said he would like to know more about the proposed TIF item. Hogeboom explained that the development could move forward without the TIF district being approved but the HRA wants to consider a larger area in order to help fund public improvements. McCarty asked about the repercussions if the Planning Cammission 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 no connections would be unsafe. McCarty seconded the amended motion adding the three additional conditions as discussed. Kluchka asked about smooth-faced concrete block. Schmidgall explained that it is concrete block that is smooth 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 be looked at. Waldhauser asked for a vote on the amended motion. The Commissioners agreed unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD 111 with the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendatians 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 will coordinate landscaping efforts with the City's Highway 55 Lilac Planting initiative. 9. The Developer will work to include an improved pedestrian connection from Golden Valley Road to the front door of the building. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 4. Other Business The Commissioners discussed the possibility of reviewing the PUD ordinance at a future meeting. Waldhauser reminded the Commissioners about the MnAPA planning conference at the end of September. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. ' � ,l�,�,. David A. Cera, Secretary