Loading...
02-11-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2013 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, February 11, 2013. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 14, 2013 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Southeast Corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive (The Colonnade) —Arcata Apartments — 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-rate apartment building. Hogeboom referred to a location map of the area and explained that the proposed apartment building would be located on the vacant parcel northwest of the existing Colonnade office building. He reviewed the history of the Colonnade PUD and explained that since the Preliminary Plan approvals the applicant has added bicycle parking, enhanced the proposed storm water pond, added pedestrian amenities, and added 22 parking spaces. The applicant is also continuing to work with the Colonnade office building to secure additional parking spaces. He added that staff is also working with the applicant regarding a construction staging and parking plan during the construction of the building, delivery access to the site, material storage, the installation of the MCES sewer forcemain on the north half of Golden Hills Drive and potential conflicts with contractors working on the proposed 3.9.4 Apartment project. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal subject based on the conditions and findings in his staff report. Waldhauser noted that Hogeboom's staff report states that the building will be seven stories in height. She noted that one level will be below grade and questioned if the building should really be considered six stories in height. Hogeboom agreed that the building should be six stories, rather than seven. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2013 Page 2 Segelbaum referred to the City Engineer's staff report and noted one part of the report states that prior to issuance of permits, the Developer must provide a signed parking agreement granting permission to park vehicle in one of the adjacent parking ramps. He questioned why that same language is not included in the recommendation section of the staff report. Hogeboom explained that the signed parking agreement requirement is only referring to the temporary construction staging and parking plan during construction. Segelbaum asked if there are access controls or restrictions in the existing Colonnade parking ramp. Hogeboom said he doesn't believe the Colonnade parking ramp is restricted, but emphasized that it is privately owned and public parking not associated with businesses inside the Colonnade building is prohibited. McCarty referred to the condition in the staff report regarding snow storage on the site and asked if that applies only during construction or when the building is open as well. Grimes stated that the City Council has added conditions regarding on-site snow storage to recent proposals. He stated that in this case he is not as concerned about snow being stored on the site because most of the parking is underground. Kluchka asked if the amount of parking is the only item that differs from the requirements of the Zoning Code. Hogeboom said yes. Grady Hamilton, Trammell Crow Company, stated that they look at parking in two different categories, the construction phase and the on-going parking needs. He explained that during construction they will manage the parking with a construction staging plan. He stated that they have had discussions with the Colonnade building owners about entering into a long-term lease for parking spaces however a perpetual lease is unlikely. He stated that the market will correct parking issues because they won't be able to lease apartments if there isn't enough parking available. He reiterated that they've added 22 parking spaces to their proposal which they feel is consistent with comparable properties in the metro area. Waldhauser asked if the residents will have assigned parking spots. Hamilton said yes and added that it will b� based on availability. Waldhauser asked about the number of visitor parking spaces. Hamilton stated there will be approximately ten spaces reserved for future resident and visitor parking, but that number could fluctuate. Waldhauser asked Hamilton if he is comfortable with the overnight security of the Colonnade parking ramp. Hamilton said yes and noted that they are considering leasing spaces that are near the entrance of the ramp. Hamilton referred to the condition regarding on-site snow storage and said they would prepare a snow management plan to present to City Council. Waldhauser referred to the City Engineer's staff report which states that the City still has concerns that the revised plans do not adequately address the potential points of conflict for vehicles entering and exiting the parking ramp. Trace Jacques, ESG Architects, stated that the original concerns regarding the parking ramp were the multiple in and out movements at side by side entrance and exits. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2013 Page 3 He explained that they have changed their plans to make the entrance driveway a one- way system which will allow queuing to occur on their own property and not on the street. Cera said he is concerned about the safety of people having to cross in front of the garage doors. Jacques said they are still exploring different options. Aaron Roseth, ESG Architects added that they are working on a detailed signage plan to make the one way in, one way out situation very clear. Cera suggested that maybe the exit doors could stay closed when the entry doors are being opened. Grimes stated that the City is most concerned about conflicts occurring in the right-of-way not the internal traffic flow. Jacques referred to illustrations of the proposed building and discussed the proposed building materials. He stated that the white areas on the building will be stucco, the tan or cream areas will be limestone, the darkest colored areas will most likely be a painted Hardie panel system that will look like a smooth metal panel and the base of the building will be a thin set cultured stone. He referred to the porte cochere and said it will be wrapped in a gold or champagne colored sheet metal. Kluchka asked about the screening of the air conditioning units. Roseth stated that each until will have its own air conditioning and heating systems with an exterior grill that will be concealed within the dark panels on the building. Jacques added that any rooftop units will be screened and will not be visible from the street. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Segelbaum stated that he feels the applicant has addressed the City's main concerns which are the driveway configuration and the amount parking. McCarty agreed that the issues have been addressed and added that more parking will also be available if the building isn't 100% leased. Cera suggested that the applicanYs continue working on the issues with the entrance and exit area. He asked about the timeline of the development. Hamilton said he is hoping for a summer ground break. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Plan Review for PUD #53, Amendment 4 subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions 1. The plans prepared by ESG Architects, dated January 11, 2013 and January 25, 2013 and submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Marshal dated January 29, 2013 shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements the City Engineer, dated February 4, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2013 Page 4 4. The Applicant is assessed a Traffic Management Fee of$17,605.20 per City Code. Payment of half of the fee ($8,802.60) is required prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. (The remaining half of the fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.) 5. No storage of snow shall be allowed on the site. 6. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 7. A materials list shall be provided before Final Plan approval. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Findinqs • 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. • 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. • The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. • The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. • The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. • The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the February 5, 2013 City Council meeting where the Council approved the Preliminary PUD Plan for the MINI Cooper dealership. He stated that the Council had a discussion regarding the issue of snow storage on the site. Waldhauser reported on an APA seminar she attended regarding small-scale commercial uses in mixed use areas or near residential areas. 4. Other Business Grimes informed the Planning Commissioners that their next meeting agenda is going to be fairly large. The Commission decided to start the meeting at 6:30 pm. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2013 Page 5 � � �� David A. Cera, Secretary