Loading...
11-26-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Vatley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, November 26, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Assistant HRA Director Jeanne Andre and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes Qctober 8, 2012 Planning Gommission Workshop Meeting Waldhauser referred to item D on page 4 and said she would like the words "and other accessory and dwelling units" added to the sentence regarding the evaluation af play structures. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 8, 2012 minutes with the above noted addition. November 5, 2Q12 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty said he had some typographical/grammatical errors that he would discuss with staff. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 5, 2012 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Consideration of Resolution Na. 12-01 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 Conform to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City, as Amended (Amended 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update) Andre reminded the Commissioners that the former bowling alley property and the adjacent property were recently reguided and rezoned to High Density Residential. Since the rezoning and reguiding of the properties the HRA has been considering establishing a redevelopment area and a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District in order to obtain the funds needed for public improvements including the slip access ramp on Highway 55 at Qecatur and the pedestrian access assuming the Tiburon project moves forward. She referred to a map of the area and explained the boundaries of the proposed Redevelopment Project Area and the Renewal and Renavation TIF District. She explained that part of the statutory process requires the Planning Commission to consider the plans and determine if they are compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 2 Segelbaum asked about the history of other various TIF districts and questioned if funds are being used for this proposed district that could possibly be used elsewhere. Andre explained that the City is not limited to a certain number of TIF districts but there are certain criteria and requirements that must be met when establishing a TIF district. She reviewed the two existing TIF districts and agreed that a TIF district does divert taxes to a specific area or project rather than contributing to the entire City. Segelbaum asked if the HRA is considering any other areas or if this is the only area being considered because of the proposed Tiburon project. Andre stated that no other areas are currently under consideration for TIF. She explained that there is only increment to capture if a development is increasing the value and taxes of the property. Waldhauser noted that there are a number of public improvements that are needed to facilitate the Tiburon development and that is one of the reasons the City is involved. Andre agreed and added that the Tiburon developer has not asked for any assistance. The proposed use of funds is for public improvements that the HRA feels would be beneficial and would make the area more desirable. Kluchka asked about the difference between the Redevelopment Area and TIF District area and why they are different sizes and different parcels. Andre stated that the Redevelopment Area is where development can happen and the TIF District includes the properties that meet the statutory requirements for blight. New development in the TIF District will increase the taxes received and the increment is used to pay for the improvements. Kluchka asked if the funds captured in the TIF District could be used elsewhere in the Redevelopment Area. Andre stated that most of the funds would be used in the TIF District however some could be used outside of the TIF District area. McCarty asked for an explanation of how Tax Increment Financing works and questioned if a definition of TIF should be included in the definition section of the Plan. Andre stated that a district is created and in that district a "frozen base" of taxes is established, which are the taxes currently being paid before any improvements, then when there is new development, the "frozen base" is subtracted from new amount of taxes being paid and the difference in tax receipts is used to fund improvements in that district. She added that she thinks the definition of TIF is presumed in the report but that she could forward the suggestion to Springsted, who prepared the report. Kisch referred to page 5 in the Springsted report and questioned why there are discrepancies in the estimated costs listed in different sections. Andre explained the difference is the present value versus the amount paid out over time due to interest, all of which is estimated at this point. McCarty referred to page 4 in the Springsted report and said that there seems to be many references to the proposed Tiburon project and that it wouldn't occur without TIF but the September 10 Planning Commission minutes state that the developer would move forward without TIF financing. Andre stated that the developer moving forward is contingent on City approval and that CNty approval is contingent on there being an environment that would be conducive to this development, which includes improved safety for vehicles and pedestrian access. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 3 Kluchka asked what specifically the Planning Commission is supposed to look for in the Plans that make them consistent or not with the Comprehensive Plan. Andre stated that in this case it is mainly consideration of the zoning and if the proposed Tiburon would be compatible with the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka disagreed and said that his understanding of what the Planning Commission is being asked to consider is if the Redevelopment District and TIF District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it has nothing to do with the Tiburon project. He added that it is also his understanding that the Tiburon could be built without TIF but the safety improvements that the City wants to do couldn't be done without TIF. Andre agreed that the Tiburon developer may want to move forward without TIF, however the City Council will decide if the Tiburon project is suitable without using TIF to provide necessary improvements. MOVED by Kisch and seconded by Kluchka to adopt Resolutian 12-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan (Renewal and Renovation) for District No. 1 conform to the General Plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as amended (2008 Comprehensive Plan Update). Segelbaum said he thinks it is difficult to state that the Plans are not consistent with the Gomprehensive Plan however he questioned if this is where the City wants to focus the funds that are being devoted to this, potentially at the detriment to other areas. Kisch added that money isn't being diverted from other areas, it's money that doesn't exist unless development happens to bring the tax base value forward. It is very targeted and involves a specific development raising the tax base providing funds to pay for the needed improvements. Kluchka asked if there were specific areas defined for redevelopment during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Grimes stated that there were several discussions identifying areas where changes could occur. He added that in this case, the properties were rezoned and redesignated for higher density that couldn't happen without the necessary infrastructure. Waldhauser read the proposed Resolution and the Planning Commission vote was unanimous to adopt Resolution 12-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan (Renewal and Renovation) for District No. 1 conform to the General Plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as amended (2008 Comprehensive Plan Update). 3. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Qevelopment (PUD) — 913Q & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway— The Tiburon — PU-111 Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC Address: 9130 & 9220 Olsan Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 4 Hogeboom stated that the Preliminary PUD Plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council on October 16, 2012 so the applicant is now starting the Final PUD approval process. He referred to a location map and reminded the Commission that the applicant is proposing to construct a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building on approximately 2.7 acres. He stated that the properties are zoned and designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for High Density Residential and staff believes that the proposal is justified as a PUD. He showed the Commission renderings of the proposed building and explained that since the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plans the applicant has incorporated the Commissioner's comments including: an additional sidewalk connection from Golden Valley Road to the front door of the building, the addition of bicycle racks, modifications to the amount of impervious surface and coordinating their landseaping with the City's Highway 55 Lilac Planting initiative. He stated that there has been a traffic study done and that the City Engineer has reviewed ways to improve the slip ramp on Highway 55 at Decatur. He referred to his staff report and said staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by UrbanWorks Architecture, dated October 25, 2012, 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 November 6, 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 November 20, 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 Plat. 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, fsderal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 7. Final PUD approval will be dependent upon the City's approval and effectuation of a tax increment financing district within the project area to fund the necessary public infrastructure requirements, to be installed by the City, including among other items, street realignment, pedestrian improvements, street lighting, sanitary sewer lining, and overhead power line burial. Waldhauser asked if the Planning Commission should be predicating their decision on the assumption that the Metropolitan Council will approve of the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding these properties. Hogeboom said the Metropolitan Council has indicated that the amendment will be approved. McCarty questioned why the developer has to pay park dedication fees prior to the approval of the Final PUD Plat and asked what happens with that money if the Final PUD Plat is not approved. Hogeboom stated that the City Code requires that park dedication fees in the amount of 1% of the estimated land value be paid prior to Final Plat approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 5 McCarty referred to the finding listed in the staff repart stating that development including necessary public infrastructure improvements is not expected to occur solely through private development within the reasonable foreseeable future. He said that he believes that this is not true for the Tiburon development. Hogeboom stated the project could not likely occur without the necessary public infrastructure improvements. McCarty said he takes exception to how this proposal is being presented to the Planning Commission. It is being presented like this project wouldn't go forward without TIF and he is not sure that is true. Waldhauser asked if that finding could be removed from the approval. Hogeboom said the language came from the City Attorney and it is ultimately the Council's decision to approve this proposal with or without TIF. Kluchka asked if the Commission could focus on the changes that have been made to the proposal since the Preliminary Plan, since the condifion regarding TIF, has already been approved by the City Council. Steve Dunbar, Applicant, Tiburon 55 LLC, referred to a site plan and highlighted the items they changed on the plans since the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD plans. He explained that they've added the suggested sidewalk to the front entrance, reduced the amount of surFace parking to 69 parking spaces, increased the width af the fire lane to 2Q feefi, lessened the impact of the masonry wall and added lilac plantings along the south property line. He showed the Commission several different elevations and views of the proposed building. Waldhauser asked if there could be additional landscaping added to the north side of the site in order to help screen the parking lot. Grimes stated that the area along the north side of the property is city-owned right-of-way and that staff would have to review any plantings in that area. Segelbaum questioned if the reduction in the amount of parking could cause other problems, or insufficient parking. Dunbar said he is comfortable with the proposed amount of parking. Kisch referred to the amount of impervious surface and asked for clarification because the plans show that there is 67% impervious surface, but his calculations add up to 80%. Noah Bly, UrbanWorks Architecture, said he would double check the impervious surface calculativns. Schmidgall stated that there will also be subterranean storm water management which to him is an acceptable alternative. Kisch agreed but said he would still like clarification of the impervious surface calculations. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he thinks this is a nice asset to the community and is supportive of the proposal. Segelbaum and Kisch agreed. Kluchka noted that one issue being considered in the creation of the TIF district is the sanitary sewer line. He noted that most property owners have to pay for sanitary sewer Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 6 repairs and questioned if it is fair to use tax dollars in this project if repairs are required. Grimes noted that any reference to sanitary sewer issues in the TIF plan refer to city- owned sewer lines, not privately owned lines. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recammend approval of the Final Plan for PUD #111 to allow for the construction of a six-story, 142- unit, market-rate apartment building subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by UrbanWorks Architecture, dated October 25, 2012, 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 November 6, 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 November 20, 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 Plat. 5. All signs on the property must meet#he 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 aver this development. 7. Final PUD appraval will be dependent upon the City's approval and effectuatian af a tax increment financing district within the project area to fund the necessary public infrastructure requirements, to be installed by the City, including among other items, street realignment, pedestrian improvements, street lighting, sanitary sewer lining, and overhead power line burial. Findinqs: 1. The City Engineer has studied the proposed development and the public infrastructure needed to support the proposed development, and the current public infrastructure is insufficient for the use described in the project plans submitted for the planned unit development. 2. The Planning Department has reviewed the project plans and indicated that the proposed development including the necessary public infrastructure improvements is not reasonably expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future. 3. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 4. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirabls portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features. 5. The PUD plan includes efFicient and effective use of the land for multi-family residentiaL 6. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent commercial uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 7 7. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 8. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Southeast Corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hitts Drive (The Colonnade) — PU-53, Amendment#4 Applicant: Trammell Crow Company Address: Southeast Corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive (The Colonnade) Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 173-unit, market-rafie apartment building. Hogeboom referred to a location map and explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 173-unit, market-rate apartment building on the northwest corner af the existing Colonnade site at the corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. He talked about the history of this site including their approval to build a hotel and their propasal to build office space, both of which were not completed. He shawed the Commissioners a site plan and some renderings of the proposed apartment building and stated that if approvals are granted they would likely begin construction in the spring. He stated that staff is recommending approvat of the Preliminary PUD plans subject to the conditions and findings as listed in his staff report. Segelbaum asked staff ta comment on the number of parking spaces being praposed and any traffic issues. Hogeboom stated that City Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multiple family dwellings and this proposal has 199 parking spaces which is under- parked according to the City Code. However this is a PUD so the number of parking spaces can vary with justification. He added that the applicant should be able to justify why they feel comfortable with 199 spaces. He referred to the traffic study done for this area and explained that it considered all of the development and potential development proposed in this area. Segelbaum asked if this proposal will add limitations, in regard to the amount of traffic, to any future development is this area. Hogeboom said that improvements will need to be done to the intersection if there is #ull build-out of all of the sites in this area. Grimes added that there has been significant study done of the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive and particularly the way it affects the operation of the I-394 and Xenia Avenue intersection. He added that housing is a benefit to the way the intersection works versus office or commercial uses. Cera stated that there could potentially be almost 1,000 apartment units in this area and asked if the market can absorb that many new housing units. Hogeboom stated that some of the proposals are considered to be in different markets. He said the sen�e he gets in working with others there is that there is room for more development in this type of market. Grimes agreed and stated that the Metropolitan Council has said Golden Valley's Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 8 population could grow to 25,000 people by 2020 because of its location, so he feels confident that the apartments in this area will succeed and will offer more choices to people who want to live in Golden Valley. Grady Hamilton, Trammell Crow Company, Applicant, introduced the following members of their development team: John Carlson, Trammell Crow, Aaron Roseth, ESG Architects, Trace Jacques, ESG Architects, Burt Coffin, ESG Architects and Brad Wilkening, MFRA. Hamilton stated that he thinks the amount of office space in the area is a strong driver of the demand for apartments. Jacques, Architect for the project, stated that the name of the apartments will be Arcata. He showed the Commission several renderings and floor plans of the proposed building and explained the architectural features and amenities of the building. Waldhauser noted that the zoning district for this property allows for taller structures and questioned why the proposed building is only 5 stories in height. Hamilton said the height of the building corresponds to the demand and consideration of the market. Alsa, a taller building would be more cost prohibitive and would require a different type of construction method. Kluchka asked what type of apartments these will be. Hamilton said they will be high quality, amenity rich and will appeal to a broad set of renters. Waldhauser asked about the rental prices. Hamilton stated that the rents will be consistent with other rental rates in the area. He added that the rental amount will depend on the size of unit but the expected rate will be approximately $1400 to $1500 per month. Grimes asked if there will be security fencing on the south side of the property around the pool and if people will use the existing circular driveway to drop off people. Hamilton said there will be fencing along the south property line and people would not be using the circular driveway. The apartment and the Colonnade office building will be two separate parcels. Kisch asked the applicant if they've talked with the Colonnade office about any type of parking arrangements should the apartment need additional parking spaces. Hamilton stated that they are surrounded by a lot of surplus parking and they would be willing to work with others in the area as needed. Grimes added that if there is a parking problem the City would have control over parking allowed on the str�et. Hamilton added that the market would also govern the parking. Cera referred to the different garage entrances and questioned how the flow of traffic would wark accessing those entrances. Roseth explained how the traffic patterns would work. Jacques stated that striping on the pavement might help that area function better. Kluchka asked about the location of bicycle racks. Hamilton stated that there are bicycle racks located in the parking ramp. Kluchka said he would like to see some public bicycle racks added to the plans. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 9 Waldhauser asked how many of the 199 parking spaees would be assigned spaces and how many would be shared spaces. Hamilton said the amount would fluctuate but he anticipates that there will be approximately 10 stalls, plus or minus 5, used for guest parking. Cera stated that in past proposals regarding this property the Council wanted this parcel to integrate with the other corners by providing open space or public space on the corners. Jacques said they would further consider additional open space on the corner. Grimes suggested there could also be a bus stop on the corner. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Bill Schroers, 721 Turners Crossroad South, said he has concerns about light pollution and traffic. He said there are a lot of "fender benders" and horn honking in the area and that the current traffic is pretty intense. He said he doesn't think the building design fits in aesthetically with the other buildings in the area and questioned if it is really the goal of the City to put a couple of thousand people in this immediate neighborhood. Harold Berman, 601 Radisson Road, said his daily commute brings him down Xenia Avenue and he is concerned about what improvements can be made to the I-394 entrance ramp so his wait time won't be seriously delayed. He said he is concerned about the added traffic with this development and the development on the south side of I-394. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kisch said he thinks this proposal is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and the existing PUD and suggested adding the following conditions: exploration of contingency parking plans to accommodate additional parking and future demand, clarification on access at the double parking entrance including pedestrian striping, addition of external bicycie storage/parking and material selection and review as part of the Final Plan review. Cera suggesting adding a condition regarding further exploration of ways to integrate the open space on the northwest corner with the other corners on Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. McCarty questioned if the City should require public space with a residential use versus an office or commercial use. Segelbaum suggested that the variances needed for this project be listed as part of the applicant's narrative. Hogeboom noted that variances aren't typically called out as a part of a PUD application because PUDs are allowed to vary from the Zoning Code requirements. Segelbaum asked if this proposal meets the requirements of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or if the guidelines in that district would suggest something different. Grimes stated that the market demand also has to be considered and that an office building in this location wouldn't work at this time. Segelbaum agreed that the market dictates the use but he would like to see some discussion on how this proposal relates to the I-394 Mixed Use Zaning District. Grimes stated that staff will put together a comparison on how the proposal aligns with the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 10 MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of PUD 53, Amendment#4 to allow for the construction of a 173- unit, market-rate apartment building subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by ESG Architects, dated October 25, 2012, 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, Qirector of Planning and Development dated November 7, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo fram City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated November 20, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall consider options for additional parking prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Additional parking options could include cross-parking agreements with adjacent property owners. 5. The Applicant shalt determine if additional stormwater storage is needed for the site. 6. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be added to the front entrance area of the building. This shall be shown on the site plan. 7. The Developer shall consider ways to better incorporate the northwest corner of the site into the surrounding area. This could include creating improved pedestrian amenities that would support a transit stop. 8. Building material and design, as well as landscaping will be reviewed during the Final PUD Plan approval process. 9. The Applicant shall provide clarification regarding the access at the double parking entrance including pedestrian striping. 10. A Zoning Code Comparison of this project and the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District shall be completed. 11. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final PUD approval. 12. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the Gity's Sign Cod�. 13. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Findinqs: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 11 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance pravisions. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business Commissioner Kisch informed the Planning Commission that he is resigning from the Planning Cammission effective immediately because he is moving out af Golden Valley. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm. � �� � David A. Cera, Secretary