Loading...
07-27-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 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 Monday, July 27, 2015. Vice Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes June 22, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the sixth paragraph on page 3 and stated that the first sentence should read “…turning left on to Medicine Lake Road” instead of “…turning left from Medicine Lake Road.” Baker referred to the seventh paragraph on page 9 and stated that the word “site” should be changed to “sight.” MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 22, 2015, minutes with the above noted changes. 2.Informal Public Hearing – Final Plan Review – Planned Unit Development (PUD #124) – Cornerstone Creek – 9300 and 9310 Golden Valley Road Applicant: CHDC Cornerstone Creek LLC Addresses: 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. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant’s request to create a residential development at 9300 and 9310 Golden Valley Road consisting of a 45 unit apartment building for adults with developmental disability, offices for Jewish Housing and Programming (JHAP), and a multi-purpose community space. She explained that due to restrictions related to financing, the multi-purpose community space will be located on a separate parcel within the PUD and that cross access and shared parking agreements will be created to ensure both parcels have access to parking and to Golden Valley Road. Goellner explained that the apartment building will consist of 40 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units, 14 of which will be reserved for households at 30% of AMI, and 4 of which will be reserved for individuals facing long-term homelessness. She added that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 2 there will also be a commercial kitchen and dining area, common space, a fitness center, and outdoor space. She discussed the parking requirements and stated that 68 parking spaces are required and that the applicant is proposing to have 73 parking spaces (44 underground parking spaces and 29 surface parking spaces) along with 4 spaces for bicycle parking near the front door. Goellner referred to the site plan and explained the changes between the Preliminary PUD Plan and the Final PUD Plan including: shifting of the building to the east, a reduced building footprint, the removal of three parking spaces, creating two lots instead of one, and doing the construction in two phases. She pointed out the location of the future sidewalk along Golden Valley Road that will be built by the City and noted that the mature trees to the rear of the property will remain and significant landscaping will be installed as part of the project. Kluchka asked if there were any City Council comments given during the Preliminary Plan review. Goellner said there were no significant changes requested, but that the applicant has incorporated the City Council’s comments into their final plans. Waldhauser asked if the applicant’s sewer and storm water systems would be considered private service facilities or common areas, and how that would work between two different owners. Goellner said the City will require shared access and maintenance agreements. Johnson asked what happens with the property if the applicant only builds phase one of their proposal. Goellner stated that the property would have already built adequate parking at that point which would be the main concern if they didn’t end up building the community room space in phase two. Baker noted that the applicant is combining two parcels into one, but would then be splitting it again because of the situation with having two separate owners. He asked if it is common in PUDs to have more than one property owner. Goellner said that is more common than not in a PUD. Scott Beckman, UrbanWorks Architecture, explained the changes since the Preliminary Plan review. He stated that they’ve reduced the building’s footprint and moved the building to the east in order to allow more space between their driveway and the neighbor’s driveway to the west. They’ve realigned their entry drives to align them with the properties across the street, and they’ve made a pedestrian connection from the proposed building to the City’s future sidewalk on Golden Valley Road. Segelbaum asked if part of reducing the size of the building included changing the overall configuration of the building. David Miller, UrbanWorks Architecture, said they just reduced the size of the link in the residential entry. Waldhauser asked for an overview of the changes made to comply with the Fire Chief’s comments. Beckman said they are adding a couple of primary shut-off connections and access at the front of the building, providing water access, adding sprinklers to smaller spaces, adding stand pipes in the stairways, and adding smoke monitoring. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 3 Kluchka asked if the greater community would be able to use the community room space. Anne Hope, Executive Director, Jewish Housing and Programming, stated that on a daily basis it will have a locked entrance, but they hope to make the space available for the community to rent. She said the space will be used as a sanctuary and a multi-purpose space as well. Kluchka asked about snow removal plans. Beckman stated that there are a couple of parking spaces that could be used for snow storage and that the owner will contract to have snow removed. Hope added she will speak to their property management company about snow removal. Kluchka referred to the number of parking spaces and asked if the residents will have cars. Hope stated that the majority of the residents will not be drivers and that people using the community center could park in the underground parking level as well. Segelbaum asked about the ownership of the different parcels. Heidi Rathmann, Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC), explained that due to the nature of the financing there will be two separate owners. The housing side will be owned by a limited partnership and the non-housing side will be owned by a newly created LLC. In both cases the managing members will be CHDC. Segelbaum asked if the owners are for profit, or non-profit. Rathmann stated CHDC in a non-profit organization that will partner with a tax credit investor. Waldhauser asked if the office space will be part of phase one and owned by the same entity. Rathmann said yes. Baker asked why a separate entity would want to own just the sanctuary. Rathmann said the majority of the housing is publically funded so it is important that they fund only the housing portion. Blum asked what the terms 30% of AMI and long-term homelessness mean. Rathmann stated that AMI is the average median income and that units would be reserved for individuals making 30% of the average median income. Hope stated that four of the units would be reserved for adults with developmental disabilities that face long-term homelessness. Waldhauser asked if services would be provided by other agencies. Hope explained that tenants will own their leases and they will come in with their own service providers. Segelbaum asked about the need for this type of housing and if CHDC is confident they can fill these units. Hope stated that they have an interest list. She added that it is an innovative building that is different than a group home and they are confident there is a need for this type of housing. Waldhauser asked if most of the new positions would be living wage jobs. Hope stated that the service providers pay their employees directly. She added that they are not high paying jobs, but they pay more than minimum wage jobs. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 4 Blum asked how many personnel there would be on site. Hope stated that there isn’t a ratio required of providers to tenants, it is based on what the tenants need. She added that there will be 2 or 3 JHAP staff, some property management and maintenance staff, and probably 8 to 9 care providers on-site at various times. Blum asked for an explanation of the footcandle map submitted as part of the application. Miller explained that the footcandle map shows the distribution and level of lighting and illustrates how the lighting is meeting the Zoning Code requirements. Beckman added that it also shows that light from this property won’t bleed onto adjacent properties. Waldhauser asked if any consideration was given to adding a green roof or solar panels to the building. Miller said those are easy to add post-occupancy, but they are not in the initial construction budget. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if a condition should be added around snow removal in order to be consistent with the condition placed on the property across the street. He added that he doesn’t want to see giant piles of snow in this highly visible area. Waldhauser noted that the property across the street had no room for snow storage. Blum stated that this property seems to have more open space to store snow and suggested that the applicant provide a plan showing they have sufficient space. Beckman referred to a site plan and showed where snow could be stored. He noted that the PUD criteria requires a plan for snow storage or removal. Blum said the proposed LED lighting is exceptionally environmentally sound and the application packet was well prepared and detailed. Waldhauser said this sounds like a great facility that is needed in the community. Segelbaum agreed. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Cornerstone Creek PUD No. 124, subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 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 waters. The proposed project protects 65 feet of undeveloped wooded area at the rear of the lot. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 5 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 July 15, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated July 20, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The property owner shall provide to the City all easements and agreements necessary to ensure cross-access and shared parking between the two lots. 5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The Final Plat shall include “P.U.D. No. 124” in its title. 8. A park dedication fee of $9,740, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 9. The applicant must validate that there is adequate space for snow storage on site, or have a plan in place for snow removal. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing – Property Rezoning – 9000 Golden Valley Road Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 9000 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to High Density Residential (R4). Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 6 4. Informal Public Hearing – Property Rezoning – 9050 Golden Valley Road Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 9050 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to High Density Residential (R-4). Items 3 and 4 were discussed together. Goellner explained that the properties located at 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road have been re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial Retail/Service to Residential High Density. According to state statute the Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan Map have to be consistent with each other so these properties need to be rezoned from Commercial to High Density (R-4) Residential. Segelbaum asked if development doesn’t happen on these properties if the City is stuck with the way the properties are zoned and guided. Goellner said the development is irrelevant because the City Council wants to see this area as High Density Residential. Segelbaum asked if these properties are part of the TIF District in this area. Goellner said they are in a redevelopment area, but there are no projects requesting TIF assistance at this time. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Blum said he is very supportive of rezoning these properties because the City often talks about where to put high density housing. He said this proposal is consistent with the long term flow of development along Highway 55 and is doesn’t conflict with traditional neighborhoods. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 9000 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to High Density Residential (R-4). MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 9050 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to High Density Residential (R-4). 5.Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP #139) – Schuett Companies – 9000 Golden Valley Road Applicant: Schuett Companies Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 7 Addresses: 9000 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow for a professional office within a principal structure containing 20 or more dwelling units. Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing to move their current offices from Mendelssohn Avenue in Golden Valley to this location at 9000 Golden Valley Road which is currently a vacant Wendy’s restaurant. She added that the City Council has targeted this area for fewer auto oriented uses and for more pedestrian friendly uses. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the proposed senior living building with 4,900 square feet of attached office space which is the use that requires the proposed Conditional Use Permit. She stated that the requirements for allowing office in the High Density Residential Zoning District state that the office must be on the first floor and must have direct access from the office to the street. She stated that staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of the access drive in order to connect the two building entrances with the proposed sidewalk along Golden Valley Road. She noted that all other zoning requirements have been met. Kluchka asked about the ability to add conditions to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Goellner stated that the Zoning Code allows the proposed senior living building so any conditions should be related to the factors used when considering Conditional Use Permits and how they apply to the office use and its relationship to the housing component. Waldhauser asked if there are landscaping, lot coverage, and impervious surface requirements in this zoning district. Goellner said there are impervious surface and building coverage requirements, but the Zoning Code does not have minimum landscape requirements. Segelbaum asked if there are tree preservation requirements. Goellner said yes, and stated that staff will be bringing new landscape requirements for the Planning Commission to review within the next few months. Segelbaum stated that landscaping could be considered part of the visual impact analysis required in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit proposal. Segelbaum asked if there are any other locations in the City with a similar use. Goellner said no, there are no other R-4 uses that include an office use. Waldhauser asked if the proposed office were vacated if the space would have to remain office space or if it could be re-purposed for a different use. Goellner said the Conditional Use Permit would need to be amended to allow a different use. Baker asked if the office space were vacated if it could become housing space. Goellner said yes, and if that were the case the Conditional Use Permit wouldn’t be needed because high density housing is a permitted use. Baker said there is going to be a lot going on along this section of Golden Valley Road and he is concerned about the impact to other businesses on that road. He asked if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 8 there is any way to influence the sequencing of the upcoming projects. Goellner said she thinks that may be considered during the right-of-way permitting process. Blum referred to the various proposed uses and said he is concerned that only the minimum parking requirement is being met. Goellner said staff also has concerns about the number of parking spaces being proposed. She stated that staff can look into it further and ask the applicant to provide examples of other properties they have that are similar to this one. Kluchka asked if proof of parking has been considered. Goellner said there is no room for proof of parking. She stated that the office and apartment uses will have different hours and that the City could ask that signs for guest parking spaces be installed. Waldhauser said she thinks office and residential uses are compatible because the residential use will most likely have visitors on the weekend when the office space isn’t being used. Johnson said the proposed building seems really massive for this property and asked about the setback requirements. Goellner agreed that it is a dense development and explained that the front yard setback requirement is 25 feet and the side and rear yard setback requirement is 20 feet. She reiterated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-4 Zoning District. Blum noted that these proposals along Highway 55 might seem visually like a row of parking lots and questioned if that should be discouraged. Goellner said staff will be drafting a pedestrian overlay district soon which would reduce the front yard setback area. Kluchka asked when the City will be installing the sidewalk along Golden Valley Road. Goellner said the design work will begin in 2016 and construction would be in 2016 or 2017. Waldhauser asked if landscaping would be put in along with the sidewalk. Goellner said yes. Matt Goldstein, Vice President of Development, Schuett Companies, stated that they are a family-owned business headquartered in Golden Valley. He said the purpose of their Conditional Use Permit request is to create a corporate office and that they’ve tried very hard to create a straightforward zoning request without the need for a PUD. Waldhauser asked if Schuett has other properties similar to the one being proposed. Goldstein said they have a portfolio of 16 properties located throughout Minnesota. He said they cater to affordable housing for seniors. He said this proposal is a slight departure from their regular model where they are moving away from income restricted affordable housing to mid-range market rate housing. Blum asked Goldstein to describe the need for this type of housing. Goldstein said they’ve found there is a large group of people that don’t qualify for income restricted housing but don’t have the means to afford higher end, luxury apartments. He said they see an opportunity to deliver a very strong, unmet need in Golden Valley. Segelbaum asked about the size and types of units. Goldstein said there will be different configurations of 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and studio apartments available. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 9 Segelbaum asked how many people the office space will accommodate. Tom Schuett, President, Schuett Companies, said the space is oversized for them right now, but it fits with their needs and future growth. He said there are six employees currently and they will have 20 parking spaces for the office use so that will help with the parking concern. He added that they may add a small locker room and work out area in the future. Segelbaum asked if they would lease out the office space they won’t be using. Schuett said no, they don’t intend to have any other tenants and that the office space will be just for their company. Blum asked how many employees will be required on-site to manage the senior housing building. Schuett explained that there will be a site manager, a maintenance person, a registered nurse and approximately five staff members. He explained that his proposal is essentially assisted living where people won’t have to move again, unlike other facilities where people move in when they are independent and then move again when their needs change. He said a lot of their residents won’t have cars and that the peak hours for care givers will be from 7 to 9 am, 11 to 1 pm, and 6 to 9 pm. Baker asked if this is a new model. Schuett said it is the model they’ve been using in their existing buildings. Baker said there is a turnover with these types of uses and he is surprised there is a market for this type of model because it is playing to a short term desire for people who discover it won’t fit their needs. Baker stated that each unit will probably have a person caring for a tenant so the simple math says there will be a shortage of parking. Schuett said he would take another look at their staffing levels and their parking needs. He reiterated that their typical resident won’t be driving. Segelbaum asked about the outdoor space. Schuett stated there will be garden areas in the back and maybe a porch area. Kluchka asked about their snow removal plans. Goldstein referred to a site plan and showed where snow would be stored. Kluchka asked the applicant if guest parking signs have been considered. Schuett said they haven’t considered that, but they will. Kluchka referred to the proposed parapet at the top of the building and said he is concerned about them not looking real. He suggested that the applicant look for opportunities to make them look more solid, or like they have a purpose. Schuett said he would address the design concerns. He said they also want to have a nice looking building. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said the concerns he’s heard are regarding snow removal, parking, and design. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 10 Waldhauser said she is less concerned about parking since they’ve learned that almost all of the residents will not be driving. Baker said he is concerned that people will own cars even if they don’t drive them and that people will also be coming in everyday to help the residents which will mean more cars. He said he thinks there will need to be a parking space for every unit. Waldhauser said she wouldn’t expect that care givers would be helping people one-on-one for hours and hours, they may be helping several different residents while they are there. Kluchka asked if the applicant is asking for a variance from the parking requirements. Goellner said no, they are meeting the parking requirements. She added that the applicant has said they are confident about the proposed number of parking spaces, but she would like the applicant to demonstrate that they will have enough parking. Blum said he thinks this use is a need that should be fulfilled, but the people who go there will have to park somewhere, and it could become a safety issue. Johnson also questioned if there is enough parking for a 100-unit building. Segelbaum stated that there is also a level of underground parking. He noted that their parking ratio is .62 spaces per unit so they are within the range of the City’s parking requirement. He added that this is a need for the community, but he thinks the City needs assurance or demonstration that the parking will work. Kluchka said he doesn’t want to require more parking. Baker said he would like the applicant to review the parking. He suggested the applicant provide an analysis of their other facilities. Blum said he would like an actual number of the people who will be providing services in order to understand the parking issues. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners how they felt about requiring a snow removal plan. Kluchka said it is valuable to request a plan that is consistent with other apartments in the area. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners about design concerns. Baker said he thinks it’s great and he wants the applicant to stay in Golden Valley. Kluchka asked how they can make sure this property is well landscaped. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 9000 Golden Valley to allow for a professional office within a principal structure containing 20 or more dwelling units subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The applicant has indicated that the market in Golden Valley would be supportive of the type of senior housing being proposed for this location. In addition, the opportunity to collocate the professional offices within the building would generate efficiencies for the management of this project. 2. With the recent redesignation of the property to High Density Residential, the proposed residential use with a secondary office use is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 11 3. Staff anticipates the new use would improve property values as it would replace a vacant fast food restaurant. 4. The number of trips associated with the proposed use is a reduction compared to the previous use, so staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. 5. Between the residential and office uses, the proposal will increase the population at the location as compared to the previous use. This is not expected to have a negative impact 6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. The construction of a new five-story building would be a visual improvement over the existing vacant fast food restaurant. However, the increase in size of the structure will be a change in the scale of development on the property. It will not, however, be out of line with other development taking place along Golden Valley Road. 10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by kaas wilson architects, received on June 26 and July 15, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The comments in the memo from the Engineering Division dated July 14, 2015, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department dated July 21, 2015, shall become part of this approval. 4. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of the access drive in order to connect the two building entrances with the proposed sidewalk along Golden Valley Road. 5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. The applicant must validate that there is adequate space for snow storage on site, or a have plan in place for snow removal. 7. The applicant shall provide historical parking information to staff for evaluation and confirmation that the project fits with the appropriate level of parking. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 6.Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker stated that the METRO Blue Line Citizens Advisory Committee has been talking about platform placement. Goellner added that there have also been discussion about using the triangular-shaped, park board property for parking. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 2015 Page 12 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. Goellner said that she has been working on a shared services agreement with St. Louis Park regarding the Central Park West development. She stated that Central Park West will also be amending their PUD soon for the office and hotel uses. Segelbaum asked about the Three•Nine•Four development. Goellner said staff is in the process of getting the final paperwork in order so the development can move forward. Segelbaum asked about the Xenia development. Goellner said that they have applied for a building permit for the parking ramp. Kluchka asked how many apartment units there are now in Golden Valley. Goellner said there are over 1,500 apartment units set to break ground in 2015 and 2016. Kluchka asked if there are any special issues or urban planning the City should be thinking about in regard to the additional apartments. Goellner said the City can handle the growth, but should be looking at multi-modal options. Baker said these are the kinds of things they should be looking at in upcoming Comprehensive Plan. Goellner stated that staff is working on the scope of the Comprehensive Plan and will start with discussing the areas of growth and doing a housing inventory. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 pm. John Kluch , Secretary L sa Wittman, Administrative Assistant