Loading...
05-27-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 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 Wednesday, May 27, 2015. Vice Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Cera and Kluchka were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes May 11, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 11, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — CenterPoint Energy — 6161 Golden Valley Road — PU-122 Applicant: CenterPoint Energy Address: 6161 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow a new approximately 64,000 square foot operations facility, replacement of an approximately 825 square foot gas regulator building, and related site improvements. Goellner explained the applicant's proposal to add an additional principal structure on their property. The proposed new building will be approximately 64,000 square feet in size and will include office and warehouse space, and a small metal shop. She noted that the plans include 197 parking spaces which staff feels is adequate for the various uses on the site. She referred to the site plan and stated that the existing stormwater pond on the site will be filled and two new ponds will be constructed along the north side of the property. She discussed the proposed landscaping and noted that that the applicant is planning on removing 65 trees and planting 132 trees and will also be adding a significant amount of landscaped screening along Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road. She stated that a sidewalk connecting the proposed facility to the sidewalk on Douglas Drive is included in the plans, but there will not be a sidewalk connection from the building to Golden Valley Road since the sidewalk on Golden Valley Road is along the north side of the street. She stated that the applicant will be completing a site safety review and will be implementing recommendations from that review in 2015 and 2016. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 2 Baker asked where the bike path is located and if this proposal will affect it. Goellner referred to the site plan showed the location of the bike path on the west side of Douglas Drive and said this proposal would not impact the path. She added that the applicant will also be providing bike racks as part of this proposal. Waldhauser said during the Preliminary Plan review the Planning Commission suggested there be heavier screening on the south end of the site, but she sees very little planting on the berm. Goellner explained the proposed screening from Douglas Drive. Zimmerman explained that the tanks are being screened by the berm as well. Baker asked who is paying for the proposed round-about. Goellner said the City and the County will be paying for that as part of the Douglas Drive reconstruction project. Baker asked if CenterPoint held a neighborhood meeting. Goellner said yes, and stated that the questions were about trees, lighting, and the approval process. Baker asked if there is much lighting associated with this proposal. Goellner said the lighting plan is appropriate and complies with the Zoning Code requirements. Johnson referred to the stormwater ponds and asked if they would be dry a certain amount of the time, or if the intention is to keep them full. He asked about the gate valve assembly discussed in the staff reports. Blum asked about the major considerations in the site safety review. Goellner said the review is particular to the site and the consultants that CenterPoint has hired to do the safety review work with gas utilities. She said they will be making sure the site has adequate fire protection and detections systems. She added that the City will be holding securities to make sure any needed improvements are done. Johnson referred to the staff report regarding the applicant working with the Fire Chief along with federal authorities and asked if that requires any additional consideration by the Planning Commission. Goellner stated that there are permits required at every level and that the Fire Chief will be working with the applicant in regard to any required permits. Vicki VanDell, Loucks Associates, Representing the Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the ponds and explained that they made a provision to add a dry water line that will connect to the fire suppression system, but it will only be used as needed, or not at all and that the ponds will have water in them at all times. Blum referred to the applicant's statement about service effectiveness being improved and asked the applicant to elaborate. Mike Jenson, Facilities and Security Manager, CenterPoint Energy, explained that they currently have groups split up in various locations and the idea is to have the groups together in one location. Blum asked how many jobs this proposal will bring to Golden Valley. Jenson said approximately 70. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 3 Blum asked Jenson to discuss the LEED certification process. Jenson explained that the LEED program is designed around various energy efficiencies and the human aspect of being in an office space. He said they are doing things like bringing daylight into the building, and providing bicycle racks among other things. He added that their goal is receive the silver level of LEED certification. Segelbaum referred to the proposed landscaped screening and asked if the goal is to add landscaping for beautification, or to screen the industrial portions of the property. Jenson said it is a combination of both. He said they want the property to look nice for employees and from the street, and they also realize that there are some industrial portions that need to be screened. Segelbaum asked if there will be fencing. Jenson said there will be fencing around the perimeter of the entire site, placed inside the landscaping. Waldhauser asked about the specific plant materials along Douglas Drive. VanDell said there will be a combination of Black Hills spruce and Colorado spruce. Waldhauser said the berm on the south side screens the view of the tanks, but there is nothing very attractive about it, and it is a recreational trail. VanDell explained that the berm will be extended along the southwest corner and that they will be reseeding with a native seed mix that will have more color in the summer. Jenson added that there is also the security aspect that has to be considered and that the security cameras need to be able to see the property. Johnson referred to the City Engineer's memo regarding tree mitigation and asked if the issues have been resolved. VanDell explained that they submitted a tree preservation plan and were informed that the ash trees on the property do not need to be replaced. Segelbaum asked about the timing of the project. Jenson said they would like to start construction by the end of July with occupancy next February. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she thinks the plans meet the concerns the Planning Commission had during the Preliminary Plan review and that this project will be an attractive addition to that intersection. Johnson agreed. Blum also agreed and added that he is pleased to see that the applicant is working to obtain LEED certification and he is happy to see that the site safety review is being taken seriously. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for CenterPoint Energy PUD No. 122, subject to the following findings and conditions: 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. This PUD will allow the applicant to better utilize the site by developing the operations facility on the site. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 4 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. The plan will utilize the perimeter of the site for tree plantings and stormwater management. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. The plan brings more active uses to this large site by providing office and warehouse uses, which are compatible with the current uses on the property. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The proposed uses are permitted in the Industrial Zoning District. 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 provisions. With exception of the issues raised by the Fire Chief, the plan generally meets the requirements. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Loucks Associates, submitted on April 24, 2015, and May 15, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the City Engineer to the Planning Manager, dated May 18, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The applicant shall construct a temporary right turn lane on northbound Douglas Drive that must be fully operational until it is permanently replaced as part of the Douglas Drive reconstruction project. 4. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Chief to the Planning Manager, dated May 18, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 5. The applicant must complete a site safety review and submit it to the City for review. The applicant must complete the safety improvements recommended in the site safety review within a timeframe established by the City. A letter of credit must be collected by the City from the applicant for this work in order to insure its completion. 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. A park dedication fee of$68,014.44 (2% of the land market value) shall be paid prior to release of the Final Plat. 8. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 122" in its title. 9. The applicant shall address screening and landscaping to describe views by pedestrians, bikers, and car passengers including renderings. 10.Bicycle racks shall be provided. 11.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 May 27, 2015 Page 5 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Cornerstone Creek — 9300 and 9310 Golden Valley Road — PU-124 Applicant: CHDC Cornerstone Creek Address: 9300 and 9310 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow for the consolidation and redevelopment of two parcels for a 45 unit facility for adults with developmental disabilities, administrative offices for Jewish Housing and Programming, and a public multi- purpose space. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's proposal to create a residential development on two existing parcels which currently consist of a small office building and a single family home, both of which will be removed. The properties were re- designated from Commercial and High Density Residential and rezoned from Business and Professional Office to High Density Residential (R-4) in April of 2012. He explained that the proposal would consist of a 45 unit building for adults with developmental disabilities, offices for Jewish Housing and Programming, and a multi-purpose community space. The housing would have 40 1-bedroom units and 5 2-bedroom units, 14 of which are reserved for households at 30% of AMI, and 4 for individuals facing long-term homelessness. The project also includes a commercial kitchen, dining area, common space, fitness center, and passive and active outdoor space. He referred to the parking on the site and stated that 68 parking spaces are required and the applicant is proposing 76 parking spaces and 4 bicycle parking spaces. He referred to the landscaping plan and stated that the existing mature trees to the rear of the property will remain and significant landscaping will be installed. Also, a sidewalk will be constructed by the City as part of the public improvements to Golden Valley Road. Johnson asked about the 30% AMI and what "long-term homelessness" means. Zimmerman stated that AMI is the average median income and that units would be reserved for individuals making 30% of the average median income. He said the applicant could explain the term "long-term homelessness." Baker asked about the TIF district in this area. Zimmerman stated that this property is in a re-development area and that this applicant is in the process of pursing a housing TIF district. Johnson questioned why these properties are not zoned Mixed-Use. Zimmerman explained that the City's Mixed-Use zoning district only applies to the properties in the I- 394 Corridor. He stated that staff wil� be working on creating a mixed-use zoning district that can be used in other parts of the City, but it was not available at the time these properties were rezoned. Blum said in effect the City can get a mixed-use with a PUD. Zimmerman said there are a mix of uses in this area, just not mixed uses within one site. Blum asked if conditional use permits could be another way to get mixed uses. Zimmerman stated that conditional use Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 6 permits are used more for putting conditions on a certain use in order to mitigate impacts such as noise, vibration, hours of operations, etc. Johnson asked if the residents will have full access to all of the areas even though there will be different owners and companies involved. Zimmerman said the uses are owned by the same basic group. He stated that the full facility will be used by the residents and some of the spaces will be used by the public. Waldhauser asked if the residency will be restricted. Zimmerman said he believes anyone can apply to be a resident. Johnson asked Zimmerman to address the grading and drainage of the site. Zimmerman stated that the Engineering staff has reviewed the plans and are comfortable with the proposed grading and drainage. He stated that a lot of the drainage that normally flows off the site to the north is being captured and brought to the southern part of the property and there will be an underground basin to help manage stormwater as well. David Miller, UrbanWorks Architecture, representing the applicant, explained that the property will be owned by one entity. The project is being developed by CHDC and the operator will be Jewish Housing and Programming (JHAP). Baker said he would like some background information on JHAP. Miller said JHAP is based in Golden Valley and provides services within the region to adults with developmental disabilities. Baker asked what community the proposed community space will be serving. Miller said the community space will be used for events such as birthdays and religious gatherings for approximately 50 people. Baker asked if the community space is exclusively for the residents. Miller said it will be used primarily by the residents and their families. Baker asked if this will be a staffed facility, and if so what the ratio would be. Miller said it will have 24-hour staff of approximately 6 to 10 staff members who will not live on-site. Segelbaum said he wants the project to be financially viable and questioned where the financial support comes from. Miller said each residents comes with their own services and that the residents have to qualify for affordable housing services. Johnson referred to the Fire Chief's staff report and asked about the alternate materials and methods because there isn't 360-degree access. Scott Beckman, UrbanWorks Architecture, explained that since they are not proposing a ring road around the facility they are proposing alternate compliance components. He said the building will be sprinklered, there will be stand pipes in the stairwells, and there will be sprinkler heads in more spaces than required. Johnson referred to the walkability in the area. Zimmerman said staff is still working on a pedestrian overlay plan to enhance street life and encourage walking. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 7 Waldhauser asked how the availability will be known, and how people will know they can apply. Miller stated that people will know about the project through their own networks and there is always a waiting list for this type of housing. Waldhauser asked if there are other organizations like JHAP. Miller said yes and added that they have worked on several population specific projects. Baker asked about the design characteristics unique to adults with developmental disabilities. Miller explained that they focus on accessibility issues such as counter heights, accessible bathrooms, and zero curb entrances. Segelbaum questioned why sidewalk connections seemed to be strongly encouraged, instead of required in the staff reports. Miller said they are reviewing and discussing the sidewalk requirements because they are concerned about accessibility and mobility with the changes in the grade. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Baker said he thinks the proposal is great, well thought out, and will be an asset to the community. Johnson agreed. Waldhauser said she would have liked to have seen a layout without the parking forward and narrow side lots, but given the property, this is the only way it works. She said she appreciates that it is not a high rise and that the way it is proposed will be better for the residents and will seem more residential. Blum agreed and added that this property is an appropriate place for multi-unit housing Segelbaum said he is impressed by the level of detail in the plans. He asked the Commissioners if they had any comments about the design or materials, and if this proposal fits in with its surroundings. Waldhauser said she thinks the proposed design will fit in and the materials being proposed are durable and should be able to be maintained for a long period of time. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for CHDC Cornerstone Creek LLC, PUD No. 124, subject to the following findings and conditions: 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. By utilizing the PUD process, the applicant has been able to accommodate three distinct but complementary uses on the site. 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 wate�s. The proposed project protects 65 feet of undeveloped wooded area at the rear of the lot. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 8 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. As a redevelopment of underutilized properties, the proposal would make better use of existing infrastructure and help the area transition into a more mixed use and pedestrian friendly environment. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The redevelopment of these two underutilized properties for affordable, life-cycle, multifamily housing is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. By providing a new and innovative housing model, this proposal helps address a community, regional, and statewide need. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a mix of uses within the site and creates the opportunity for the establishment of a new multi- purpose community space. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by UrbanWorks Architecture, submitted April 24, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 18, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 18, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 124" in its title. 7. A park dedication fee of$9,740, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the final community open house for the Bottineau station area plans will be held on June 4 at the Harrison Community Center. Goellner gave a report on the May 20 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27, 2015 Page 9 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report - No report was given. Goellner stated that the City received the $30,000 grant for the bike trail work along the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 pm. ,� (� , , �� John KI ka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant