Loading...
07-22-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, July 22,2002 7:00 PM I. Approval of Minutes - June 24, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: American Lutheran Theological Seminary Address: Light Industrial Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to add non-residential post secondary schools as a Conditional Use to the City's Business and Professional Offices, Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. III. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-97) Applicant: American Lutheran Theological Seminary Address: 800 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for a non-residential seminary on property in the Light Industrial zoning district. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings v. Other Business A. Presentation on Natural Resources Inventory, with the Environmental Commission and the Open Space and Recreation Commission - SEH, Inc., consulting engineers, presenting. VI. Adjournment .J, . . '. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 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 June 24,2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning an Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Secreta Commissioner Shaffer was absent n, McAleese t, Mark I. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 2002 Plan MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and June 10, 2002 minutes as submitted. Informal Public Hearing - Pial') evelopment Amendment (PUD-65 A) Applicant: Address: Purpose: d like to amend the existing PUD to allow for a drive-through facility. Grimes explained tha Golden Valley SI1~ explained ho it re determine~t for TH55. r" center Icant is TCF National Bank but that it is part of the enter PUD. He referred to the site plan for TCF and the rest of the shopping center. He stated that in 1994 it was e parking lot and driveway encroached on MnDot right-of-way resolved by MnDot turning property over to the Trach shopping Grimes sta at the TCF building would be approximately 4,000 square feet in area, access would be off of Golden Valley Drive and there would be no new driveway cuts. He stated that a chief concern was traffic. The City hired Glen Van Wormer, a traffic engineer from SEH to study the traffic issues, the study showed that the traffic generated from the TCF site would be similar to other types of commercial uses. Grimes reviewed the parking regulations and stated that they would have 27 parking spaces, 10 spaces would be for employee parking and 17 spaces would be for customer parking which would be more than adequate. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24,2002 Page 2 Grimes reviewed the setback requirements and showed the Commissioners a copy of the landscape plan. He stated that the plans show some landscaping on right-of-way property and that the City Engineer and City Council would have to approve that. Groger pointed out that the southern strip of green space shown on the plans is incorrect and that that is really a driveway. Grimes stated that another issue is that most of the stores in the s connected to wells and the City may make them go on City wate also added as a condition of approval that dumpster enclosur~s all dumpsters on the Golden Valley Shopping Center propey Grimes referred to the original PUD Permit issued in 19~,\.<i.re~d"hat the amount of signage existing on the site at the date of PUD approval s~all b~ithe amount permitted on the site. He stated that TCF would like to add ana iylon sign and a monument sign to the site. He stated that the Building Officiali.\.i:@ary ahnson has recommended limiting TCF's signage to 164 square feet, whifh is th~:amount permitted for a building in a commercial zoning district. He showed tH~..~om~ission a sketch of the monument sign and stated that the pylon sign is sti)l ssueiitl'1al Has to be dealt witH. ing center are ted that He st beiConstructed for e'r 1,2002. Pentel a Road to tHe Wisconsin. IS for the whole shopping center. Grimes s\ite. . Pentel asked if 164 square feet of s' stated no it is just for the TCF ar Rasmussen asked wHat th TCF and would also serv ,{u~~t sign would say. Grimes stated it would say 'irecHonal sign. Grimes discussed theist shopping center ~~rn Golden Valley Road' about landsc . suggested amendment. @g on the site and stated that tHe City would like the en the other three corners of the Winnetka Avenue and ection. He stated tHat Staff would like to open up discussions mer with David TracH, the owner of the property and Ing that corner be made a condition of approval as part of tHis ut pedestrian traffic and how people would get from Golden Valley opping center. Grimes stated tHat the City did make a connection from Pentel asked what the City could do to make the barriers in that area more aestHetically pleasing. Grimes stated tHat is outside of this PUD and that he would have to talk to tHe Director of Public Works to determine if cHanges could be made. . Pentel stated sHe noticed tHat tHe dumpsters are very available for use by tHe general public and asked if there were any requirements about locking dumpsters for tenants use only. She also asked how HigH tHe newly required trash enclosures would be and . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 3 what they would look like. Grimes stated he would leave those decisions to the Inspections Department because they have requirements regarding dumpsters and enclosures. He stated that he too has noticed the dumpsters atthe shopping center are starting to look unsightly. Pentel asked if the City has any say about what time of day that garbage could be picked up. Grimes stated they would have to follow City noise ordinances. Hoffman asked why they are dealing with the dumpsters when t~ey 0 to do with the TCF proposal. Grimes explained that when a F>UD)t'~ am up all of the issues for scrutiny. have anything ed it opens Eck stated that Grimes' comments have been that the co qscaping issue would be opened up for discussion, but that might not happen 8r;ld th ity Engineer's memo makes it sound like it will happen. Grimes statedtha as been some confusion over this issue and that the City has stated in te:pqsl th oes want the corner landscaping issue to be dealt with in due tim . Mike Kraft, Shea Architects, Ar or the project, stated that they want to dramatically clean up the w t;'~!'lQl';~he property and make it look comparable to the rest of the Area B sites.~ed that the lighting store would also be cleaned up as a part of this proposal andey are adding curb and gutter to the rest of the site. He showed pictures of oposed building would look like and discussed the proposed drive ulan ated they would like to add picnic tables to the green space to the wes . ed they are intending to enclose their dumpster with the same brick u ilding and that they have agreed to stay within the 164 square foo irements. it some creative ideas for the I!lq~. come of that. Grimes stated no, Pentel stated that the Area B task force shopping center corner and asked if nothing has been decided. ;~re the next closest TCF branch is located and if this proposed branch with vaults. Kraft stated the there was a branch in Robbinsdale. full service but they would not have any vaults. Hoffman asked if TCF's dumpster would be locked. Kraft stated no. Eck asked how many cars would stack in the drive up lanes at busy times. Kraft explained that they plan stacking for six cars but the typical amount is more like two or three and that an extremely busy day could have 1,800 cars per day, but that it is not likely to have that many. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24,2002 Page 4 Pentel asked if TCF would be leasing the property. Kraft stated yes. Pentel asked if this proposal would have to go to the Building Board of Review. Grimes stated he wasn't sure and that it was up to the Inspections Department to decide. Joe Finley, Leonard, Street & Dienard, attorney representing the Trachs, stated that almost all of the businesses have been connected to City water already. He addressed the dumpster issues and stated that they are adding shielded dum rs but that it would be almost impossible to add swinging doors because of t2/ a ::~ building is set up. He referred to Grimes' comment about a PUD amen9me10l~?penij~g up the whole PUD for scrutiny and stated that he did not think th~t/was~rue~i:~e discussed how having to landscape that corner of Winnetka and G?I~~n.<Yalle~. Road would require them giving up a lot of their land, would change t~e fl~~. ?t+the shopping center and they would have to tear down a building. He stated he does<not want the Planning Commission to add landscaping the corner as a cdridi . approval for TCF and asked to not require the Trachs to give up theirland.;~ithgoing through a condemnation process. He discussed the DOi!~n case ,and laws about taking property and stated that whatever is happening with th~;TCF bank has nothing to do with the shopping center and that the lease with...JCR(may(bY"killed if landscaping the corner is made a condition of approval. Finley stated that the buil held to current zoning~re< that this area is a cent into the 21 st Cen green space the Trach given to the . r ing.lot would meet zoning requirements Fe proposing zero setbacks on two sides so it . Pentel asked if the TCF building. without a PUD. Grimes stated th would not meet zoning req as legal when it was originally built and should not be nts just because the laws have changed. Pentel stated f Golden Valley and the City has worked hard to bring it mes stated that the City has given the shopping center a lot of the site and that is another reason the City wants to talk with e dscaping issues. Finley stated that the land did not have to be .;(:;ause a PUD Permit is a discretionary permit. -.,,,) d if the City has discussed condemning the property on that corner. Grimes stat hat it was discussed in 1995 but that the City did not want to acquire it then. Rasmussen questioned if the City has a right to take his business away over a landscaping issue. She stated she was pleased that TCF is proposing to update the one end of the site and she is hopeful that the whole building could change. Finley stated that giving up that corner would also cut access to the site, cause safety issues, change the flow and cause real profit and property loss. . Rasmussen asked how a shopping center is updated. Finley stated that it is hard to tell tenants to get out when they have a lease. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 5 . Eck asked if the trash enclosures would only have three sides and if that meant the open side would face Golden Valley Road. Finley stated they would have three sides but that the openings would face the building. Pentel opened the public hearing. Alex Phoenix, 8116 Golden Valley Road, stated that she wants~~jth businesses in the area and doesn't want it to be "us" against "them". Sh~sta~~~ tha}i1She has not had any issues with the dumpsters but rather the traffic anqinoise.<~tl,,~;istated that she has heard trash compacting at 4:30 AM and has called th" olice but that it is not happening anymore. She stated she wasn't keen on th&llP ,.a;li1i;'800 cars per hour but she is sympathetic with TCF. She expressed concem'iabo .;the T-street where all of the traffic is and stated that it is not a pedestrianifrj rea. She also expressed concerned about the safety of people wantingtoiwat4to edestrian bridge. She asked the Planning Commission if TCF Bank ,is already planning to go into this location of if the Planning Commission is deciding if th~t is viae. She askedwhat is actually being decided at this meeting. Pentel clarified that the 1,800 cars . Jean Caleneni, 8104 Golden Va ad, stated that she agreed with Alex Phoenix's comments and stated that 'f'()f ents are getting together to talk about development in the area. fat d e is mostly concerned about the few opportunities for egress. ated there would be more and more traffic going by their townhouses andljth (section is almost nightmarish. She stated that there is only one route that is wal nd that there needs to be another pedestrian option. Valley Road, stated he liked the development in the area strian friendly area. He stated he is not sure where the City is ~pcess and asked about the proposed circulation around the T- tated he wasn't sure if there had already been discussions regarding that he would like to be involved in future discussions. Phoenix stated that she could not support a pylon sign for TCF because people would be looking right at it from their windows. Brittny McCarthy Barnes, 8106 Golden Valley Road, stated she is curious about where the City is in the process of approving this PUD amendment. She asked if the City Council would be making a decision next week or if it would just be a discussion, She asked if rCF is for sure going to be the tenant or if there is another possible tenant. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24,2002 Page 6 . Pentel explained the process that PUD amendments go through and the Planning Commission's role. She stated that the property is zoned Commercial and that the property owners in that zoning district have certain rights. Groger clarified that this meeting is the first time the Planning Commission had discussed this proposal and that they encourage proponents to have neighborhood meetings. Pentel added that she would encourage residents to tal~i~Qthe City Council. . Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public Works a9dr~~.d the pedestrian circulation report. He stated that the City has spent hundreds of thO~.~.9rilds of dollars so far on improvements and that all of the improvement;......... v.....e..................<.be....e.. ~iapart of the pedestrian traffic solution. \<i< ..i McCarthy Barnes asked if it would be too late to talk the ~ity Co;lJincil since this proposal would be on their next agenda. Pentel stated tha~shetUi~~f it is still a good idea to think of creative ways to move pedestrian traffic;/iiS~e stated that the Council would be acting on this proposal soon, but that there win be co nued development in that area. Phoenix asked if there were any reason ~~X t~~driv~{ii..Jp lanes were being proposed on the west side of the site rather than the e8'st;;b e cause the traffic would flow in a more efficient manner if they were on the eq~t . e site. Pentel stated that there are already parking spaces on the eas a plained that putting the drive up lanes on the west side allows enough roo eacking of cars and that if the lanes were on the east side on the building th l!l'd be on the passenger side of the vehicles. Pentel closed the public h ewalk issues are important. Grimes reminded the ewalk that goes in front of the stores. Pentel stated she thirix'S Commission that there reEm space that would be taken on the site for the drive up lanes uests. iscussion item number six on Grimes' staff report which refers to the f perty by the City at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Winnetka a stated that he doesn't think that any of the Planning Commissioners are legally qualified to comment on the legalities of that issue. Pentel stated that number six from Grimes' memo was taken from condition number three on the City Engineer's memo which states the developer must submit a plan and schedule for the installation of streetscaping in the southwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road and that it must be of similar materials and quality as the city streetscaping in the downtown area. Eck stated that he is not comfortable with the way number six on Grimes' memo is presently worded. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 7 Groger stated he is not in favor of this proposal. He stated that it is currently grossly in violation of the City Code and that the only green space is at the west end of the site. He stated that just because the existing parking lot has no green space doesn't mean they should extend the pavement to the west end. He stated that the City has to rely on the traffic engineer but that the traffic will increase and that this proposal is too intense of a use and will further aggravate the existing problems. He stated that the Highway 55 right-of-way area is not supposed to be counted as setback are919pd that allowing the use of right-of-way for green space is setting a bad precedept:> He5~ated he is against this proposal with or without the streetscaping on the?Ol.:Jtgwest corner. McAleese stated that Grimes' recommendation and the C~.~pgine~rs recommendation are saying pretty much the same thing;and'!~e is,comfortable with the way it is worded. He stated the City needs to do somet. abQut the southwest corner issue but that it should be left to the attorneys to wOrkijt,p: He stated that as far as the legalities about being in violation of the PUP<otdjRancei'tile would rely on the City Attorney's opinion but the proposal is againsti~he PUDconcept. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Groger about saving t.h... e little. bit o.......f../.green space that is left but that any use of the site would generate aboLJtt'fl ~me{arnount of traffic so that part of the proposal is not a concern to him. / sine?s is not the highest and best use for this e was passive green space or used for drainage I ~t if the City has a negotiating tool to help them in ope at tne shopping center she would support it. She /pylon signs on this property. She stated that the task p the small businesses in Golden Valley and if by an open up discussions for improving the whole area, Pentel stated that she thinks a y site. She stated that if the gree she wouldn't support this pr getting some improvemen stated that she only want force for this area granting this proposal she is for it. d with Pentel and that the traffic engineers at SEH have done p~~t so he is not concerned about the increase in traffic caused by Eck stated he asked Grimes to look at the access to the side and both he and the City Engineer say the accesses are staying the same and that this proposal won't have a big impact on the site. He stated he would be supporting this proposal with item number six in Grimes' memo reworded. Rasmussen stated she has a problem with the City making the property owners give up some of their land and make tenants leave. She stated she is concerned about the signage on the site but not so concerned about the traffic because with any commercial use at that site the traffic would be about the same. She stated she would support this proposal. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24,2002 Page 8 . Pentel stated she would not have a problem with TCF having a small monument sign placed at their discretion but suggested that the wording of condition number five in Grimes' memo be changed, but keeping the total signage for the building limited to 164 square feet. Grimes explained that the 164 square feet recommendation is from the Building Code and applies to any commercial building. He stated that his memo would be reworded before it went to the City Council and asked the Com . ioners about continuing negotiations involving future dedication of property co 'ii er Winnetka and Golden Vally Drive. Rasmussen suggested saying that nningiCommission thinks that developing the corner is important but how theroperty owners negotiate it would be up to the attorneys involved. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carrie~ to the applicant's request to amend the existing PUD to allow for a ban~:i:~I!hi:ifi drive-through facility. Commissioners Groger and McAleese voted ngtiitGi r6veiithe proposal. III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subcfvisio Applicant: George Wessin U 06-02) . Address: Lot 10, Block';iH~f3f'~r~oke located at 1811 Noble Drive; and Tract G, Registered purvey No. 1104 and part of lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No.330, at 1807 Noble Drive in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: t is requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land draw the property line between these parcels. The uld like to build a new home at 1811 Noble Drive. Olson referred to a":~it n and showed the location of the properties involved and showed the .sti!llgM~~" proposed new property lines. He stated that the applicant is requesting< 't!~" property lines be revised in order to build a house at 1811 Noble Drive, which urrently vacant. He stated that the detached garage at 1807 is not compl beh the house and that is the only thing that doesn't meet Zoning Code requirem~il:) e stated because of the garage issue the proposal would need a variance from the subdivision code. Olson discussed the park dedication fees related to this subdivision and stated that the City requires park dedication fees when applicants are creating a new lot to be for sale. . Eck stated that the premise for this proposed subdivision seemed flawed because there is nothing stopping the applicant from building a home on the vacant lot as it is now. He stated that Olson's memo says the applicant is requesting this subdivision "so that a new home could be built" is incorrect. Olson agreed that he should have worded his memo differently. ," . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24,2002 Page 9 Wayne VanderVort, 4525 Belford Drive, Edina, representing the applicant stated that a home could be built at1811 with the property lines the way they are now, but Mr. Wessin wants there to be a buffer between the two lots. Pentel asked when the house at 1807 was built. Olson stated his research showed that the house was built in 1932. Pentel stated that the garage require[l)'!@!}ts might have been different then. Pentel opened the public hearing. Erik Meyer, 1815 Noble Drive asked if it was the applica@ Q.~~ntto build on the lot or to sell it. VanderVort stated it that the lot would probabIY't;)e sold; MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmuss~n>>an~imo , carried unanimously to approve the request for a minor subdivision tqredrawi~he property line between 1807 and 1811 Noble Drive. IV. Reports on Meetings o!ttle ~,ouslng and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoningppeals and other Meetings No other meetings were V. Other Business VI. G' . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to Light Industrial, Industrial, and Business and Professional Offices Chapters ofthe Zoning Code to add Non- Residential Post-Secondary Schools as a Conditional Use (Including Parking Requirements)-American Lutheran Theological Seminary, Applicant Date: July 17, 2002 The American Lutheran Theological Seminary (AL TS) has requested an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow non-residential post-secondary schools as a conditional use in the Light Industrial zoning district. This request has been made by AL TS because they would like to lease about 2,800 sq. ft. of an office/warehouse building at 800 Boone Ave. N. for the operation of the seminary. The building is about 42,000 sq. ft. in area with about half the building used for office space. The property at 800 Boone Ave. N. is currently zoned Light Industrial. Within that zoning district, seminaries and other schools of higher education are not permitted by right or by CUP. The conditional uses listed in the Light Industrial section do include ''Trade Schools and Training Centers". After further review with the City Attorney, it was the staff's decision that institutions of higher education do not qualify as a trade school or training center. A trade school or training center is a place where certain trades or skills are taught that mayor may not result in a degree or other form of certificate of completion. The curriculum and intent of a trade or training school is different than a post-secondary school. The Zoning Code permits post-secondary schools like colleges and seminaries only within the Institutional (1-2) zoning district. Within the 1-2 district, post-secondary schools can be residential (like the old Golden Valley Lutheran College where the Arts High School is now located) or commuter-type schools (like Metro State). The schools can be of any size as long as certain requirements are met such as parking and setbacks. There is no vacant 1-2 property within the City of Golden Valley. Property would have to be rezoned in order to provide for a college or other post-secondary education facility. Although the applicant has requested a change only to the Light Industrial chapter, the staff is recommending that a change be considered to allow certain post-secondary schools also in the Industrial and Business and Professional Offices zoning districts. These three districts . are similar in that office space is a permitted use in each of the districts. In the case of the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts, trade schools and training centers are considered conditional uses. The staff believes that the request to change the Code to permit certain post-secondary schools in the Light Industrial, Industrial and Business and Professional Office districts is reasonable given today's changing system of post-secondary education. Today, there are many colleges and universities that are moving teaching off the main campus to provide more convenient locations for students. Often times, these smaller education sites are located in office buildings that have good access and parking facilities. In many cases, the classes may be held in the evenings and on weekends in order that working students have better opportunity to attend class. The staff is recommending the change to permit, by conditional use, post-secondary schools, seminaries and other institutes of higher education offering associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees that meet state standards to legally operate in Minnesota and do not include residential living facilities or on-site food service operations (other than vending machines). These types of schools would have to provide one parking space for each seat based on maximum seating capacity of classrooms and rooms of assembly, and one parking space per instructor, teacher and support staff. . Limiting post-secondary schools to ones that do not have residential facilities and food service facilities is important in order that these schools would not greatly change the character of the buildings where they are proposing to locate. If a school does have a need for dormitories, they are not suitable for a building in these three zoning districts. The same / goes for on-site food services. If food is needed, the food can be from vending machines, brought in by students and staff or catered. The CUP process would permit a new building to be constructed for post-secondary school purposes as long as it is only for teaching purposes and not residential and food services were permitted. The parking requirement that is proposed may make some buildings unsuitable for post- secondary schools. In most cases, the proposed parking requirement is greater than the standard for office buildings (one space for each 250 sq. ft.) In order to allow a post- secondary school in an existing building, there would have to be excess parking on-site to meet the parking demand. The staff believes that it is important to have this parking requirement because almost all adult students drive to these types of schools, particularly if the classes are held in the evening or late afternoon. \ As with any CUP application, the City would have the right to review the CUP for consistency with existing plans and ordinances and for compatibility with existing city facilities, including traffic capacity . The staff believes that a non-residential post-secondary school is consistent with the comprehensive plan for areas that are designated Office, Light Industrial and Industrial. Post-secondary schools will include a substantial amount of office space along with the classrooms and other areas. The City has already permitted other forms of alternative education within the industrial areas of the City including alternative schools, training centers and research facilities. 2 . . . . Recommended Action The staff recommends amending the Light Industrial, Industrial and Business and Professional Offices zoning district to permit, by conditional use, post-secondary schools (colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education) offering associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees that meet state standards to legally operate in Minnesota and do not include residential living facilities or on-site food service operations (other than vending machines.) The parking requirement for these post-secondary schools would be one parking space per seat, based on maximum seating capacity of classrooms and rooms of assembly, and one parking space per instructor, teacher and support position. This change will allow for certain types of schools to operate in Golden Valley that are needed to meet today's more flexible learning environment while maintaining the integrity of zoning districts that are primarily intended for office, industrial and commercial uses. 3 . ". iil . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes,. Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application to Operate the American Lutheran Theological Seminary in a Light Industrial Zoning District (800 Boone Ave. N.)-American Lutheran Theological Seminary, Applicant Date: July 17, 2002 Background . The American Lutheran Theological Seminary (AL TS), represented by Harald Schoubye, Th.D., President Pro Tempore, of the Seminary, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate the seminary at 800 Boone Ave. N. A CUP is required to operate non-residential post-secondary schools in the Light Industrial zoning district. At the present time, these types of schools are not permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district. The Planning Commission is considering a change to this zoning district that would permit these types of schools by CUP at an informal public hearing preceding the informal public hearing on this CUP application. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the change to the zoning code to permit these types of schools by CUP, the recommendation by the Planning Commission on this CUP application would have to go to the City Council. This approval would be contingent on approval by the City Council of the amendment to the Zoning Code permitting these types of schools in the Light Industrial zoning district. Proposed Use by ALTS AL TS is requesting a CUP in order that about 2800 sq. ft. of the 42,800 sq. ft. office/warehouse building at 800 Boone Ave. N. may be used for their seminary. The seminary currently is located in a Lutheran church in St. Paul on Hamline Ave. south of 1-94. They would be moving the seminary to the new location. Attached is a written description of the school's operation, a layout of the portion of the building they will be utilizing, a copy of the site plan for the entire building and a site plan that indicates the parking layout. . The seminary qualifies as a conditional use in the Light Industrial zoning district assuming that the zoning amendment to allow such non-residential post-secondary schools by CUP is approved by the City Council. AL TS plans include a non-residential school that offers . . . . graduate degrees and meets the state standards to operate in Minnesota. In addition, they will not provide food service on the site. There is more than adequate parking on site to meet the proposed parking requirement of one space for each unit of seating capacity and one space for each employee. The site currently has 155 spaces for the 42,800 sq. ft. building. If the seminary were approved, the building would need to have 129 spaces to meet the Zoning Code requirement for parking based on the amount of office, warehouse and seminary space in the building. As indicated in the information submitted by AL TS, there would be a need for about 15-16 parking spaces for the seminary. (The plan indicates 12 seats in the classroom and therewill be 4 employees.) The site plan indicates how they plan to utilize the 2,800 sq. ft. of space. This space will be along the west end of the building with frontage along Boone Ave. There will be changes to the. interior of the building to accommodate the needs of the seminary as explained in their information. Staff has been to the site and discussed the proposed use with other City Departments. The only issue that has come up is in regard to providing a code analysis as soon as possible in order that there is an understanding regarding how the physical changes will be done to meet the requirements of the building and life safety codes. The staff believes that the operation of the seminary at this location as proposed by AL TS will not have a profound effect on the existing office/warehouse building. In fact, it will be difficult to notice any difference between the proposed use and a permitted office use that could rent the 2,800 sq. ft. of space. In fact, the seminary will utilize almost half the space for offices. The remaining space will be for the small classroom and library. Factors for Consideration When approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that the Planning Commission make findings on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those facts as they relate to the current proposal is as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market for the proposed good or service. That criterion has been met in this case. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map identified the proposed property at 800 Boone Ave. N. for light industrial uses. Non-residential post-secondary schools, by conditional use permit, have been determined to be consistent with this comprehensive plan map category. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of this CUP will not substantially alter the extent or nature of on-site development activity. It would be difficult to distinguish the seminary use from a permitted office use. The seminary will not have a negative impact on surrounding property values. 2 . . . 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Congestion in the Area: The proposed seminary will have a maximum of 15 people in the space according to their submittals. This is about the same amount of people that would be on site if it were used as an office. The hours of operation are about the same as an office building with some limited night classes. There are no traffic related issues in this area so the proposed seminary will have a neutral effect on congestion and traffic flow. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Because this is not a residential proposal, the permanent population of Golden Valley will not increase due to the seminary. There will be about 4 employees that will be added to the City's daytime population. 6. Increase Noise level: Staff has no reason to expect that a seminary would create any noise impacts that would extend beyond the site. 7. Any Noise, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration by the Use: The seminary is not expected to cause any of these problems. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats or other Vermin in the Area Caused by the Use: The seminary is not expected to cause any of these problems. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: Since the CUP is for an interior use of the building; the outside visual appearance of the building will not change with the possible exception of new windows and appropriate signage. 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: The staff does not see any other issues to address. Recommended Action 1. The staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow AL TS to use approximately 2,800 sq. ft. of the building at 800 Boone Ave. N. The seminary will have approximately the same number of employees and students as an office of similar size. There is more than adequate parking on the site to meet the parking requirement for this type of school and the remaining uses in the 800 Boone Ave. N. building. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 2. The City Council approve the amendment to the Light Industrial chapter of the zoning code to permit non-residential post-secondary schools as a conditional use permit in the Light Industrial zoning district. 3. AL TS will be limited to 2,800 sq. ft. in the building and have 16 parking spaces available for use by students, faculty and staff. The use of the space may include a classroom with a seating capacity of 12, a library and offICes. Any expansion of the seminary shall require an amended CUP. 4. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 3 . 5. The applicant shall submit a code analysis to the City's Building Official prior to approval of the CUP by the City Council. 6. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met. 7. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation or the CUP. 8. AL TS is a non-residential seminary and there shall be no food service operation on-site. Attachments: Location Map Narrative Description of School's Operation Interior Site Plan Site Plan . . 4 10TH AVE N 10TH AVE N Subject Property: 800 Boone Avenue N. OLSO^, .'4 . . . Narrative Description of the Details of Site Usage The 2900 square feet portion of the present structure at 800 Boone Ave. North for which the present application for a conditional use permit is being filed will be used as a seminary without residential facilities. The space will be used as.a research library, one classroom, three administrative offices, and one reception area. The hours of operation are day times except for the occassional evening class. Classes would be held 20 hours per week and classes consist of from 2 to 10 students. Most classes meet in the mornings but typically one class will meet one evening a week. The seminary also has about 30 students who study off-site by distance learning. The students are primarily graduate level, not undergraduate. At the graduate level, most of the "classwork" is focussed on research. Some of that research will involve time in the library. One to four students would use the library at any given time. The offices will be used for faculty research and faculty-student mentoring. Faculty mentoring takes place in telephone or one-on-one meetings. There would be three to four employees utilizing the offices consisting of two to three faculty and one secretary. There would be some additional contracted faculty who would be on-site to conduct classes but whose non-teaching work would be done elsewhere. To accommodate the seminary there would be a minimal amount of change to the present appearance, layout, and functioning of the building. The seminary would request exterior signage and would require a buildout of the space which is presently open and unfinished. Exterior windows may be changed to complement the windows that are along the south side of the building where there are existing offices. At its present location the operation of the seminary has had little impact on the neighbors and their operations. There is a low volume of students and the activities are of a light nature. FIRE PLACE 26' COMFUTERI TEL ECONF. AREA 39'.1" t i CLASSROOM 25' X 28' r--6'181-S;~ 000f1 10 .> '-------c--~ I i I QQQQ ! I I nOQg " t........l ill o. i ~ ..n__h__....U.____.~ &"-8' 13 FT. CEILlNC:: :1 [..--.....j EXISTINC:: EXTERIOR WALL (BRICK WI CMU BACKUP) --.......,..IJ.l...--...--.....! 's-L"--"----"-- ....... - m=-,'l li~~l']1 W _+.J..~ n. J]: I. I , I. I : . I LI ~RY 12181j' : tl~. : . ~H 11"~ I , . I i I , ~ W KITCHEN ALCOVE :IT X 15' r--I I ~05 S.F._ ~ .......--{il! [J PROF. OFFICE 11'-6" X 16' 184 S.F. 10 FT. CEILING PROF. OFFICE 11'-6" X 16' 184 S.F. 10 FT, CEILlNC:: STORAC::EI OFFICE SUPPLIES 12' SECRETARIAL AREA 11' X 22' 242 S.F. EXISTlNC:: CMU WALl: AMERICAN LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BUILDING =Ni~ANC= .> <::::- SUITE :::NTRANCE BOO BOONE A VENUE I'.. fl.II' GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 6 . 12 . 2002 . . . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Natural Resources Inventory Date: July 18, 2002 As can be seen on the July 22nd Planning Commission agenda, a natural resources inventory presentation will be made to the Planning Commission, Open Space and Recreation Commission, and the Environmental Commission. The presentation will be made by the City's engineering consulting firm, SEH, Inc. The presentation will begin at approximately 7:45 P.M., after the Planning Commission's Informal Public Hearings. The natural resources inventory was completed as a result of a grant received by the City from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The inventory shows the location of such Golden Valley resources as trails and public accesses, wetlands, significant or sensitive plant communities, greenways, and nuisance vegetation. . City of Golden Valley Natural Resources Inventory - Objectives · MLCCS - Minnesota Land Cover Classification System of entire City · MnDNR Greenways Grant with Match from Commission · MLCCS to level 4, and levelS with modifiers · Important Modifiers - Percent cover and composition of nuisance/invasive vegetation, impervious surface cover, wetland types · Identify greenways, habitat corridors, potential connectivity . · Identify restorable habitats · Characterize wetlands, complete MNRAM on representative wetlands · Sensitive resources and rare features (i.e. endangered species, unique habitats) · Existing public trails and accesses distribution . Products . · Geographic Information System database with MLCCS polygons and data layers · Supporting text in a Report, will include some management recommendations or trends · Open House for general public to present completed study results · Presentation to Commission . 1st - Natural Resources Inventory . 2nd - Natural Resources Management (Action) Plan · 3rd - Implementation and/or Specific Plan (i.e. European buckthorn Eradication and Control Plan) e · The Inventory will provide a long term database and information source for a multitude of actions . . Applications · Planning - Action plans, maintenance plans, environmental outreach/education (i.e. goose management plan) · Regulatory - Wetland permitting and mitigation decisions, tree and vegetation ordinances, stormwater and surface water · Restoration - Wetlands and Uplands (Oak savanna, prairie) · Management and maintenance - e.g. buckthorn control and eradication, loosestrife eradication, forest quality improvement Buckthorn - manual removal e Purple loosestrife and leafy spurge - biocontrol with beetles Education Program - Inform and enlist citizens to help Guidelines and policies for redevelopment Target surface water improvement needs based on vegetative cover and impervious surfaces "Adopt a green space" V olunteer conservation projects Xeriscaping with Natives, planting vegetation that requires minimal watering and is tolerant of urban stresses e "Snags for Critters" - leave the dead trees for animals if it is not a safety hazard . Schedule · May/June - Preparation and Remote Sensing · July/August - Field Assessment and GIS Digitizing · August/Sept. - Additional Field Assessments, complete GIS database · October - Draft Report · November through Jan. 03 - Final Report and GIS Database e Completed · Remote Sensing . Approx. 1/3rd of field typing . # . Preliminary Findings · Natural Cover mostly found on city land (parks, greeenways) and in vacant parcels · Forest composition, entirely second growth, low to moderate quality. Cottonwoodlboxelder canopy dominates. Maple- Basswood, red oaklbur oak forest is rare to non-existent. Floodplain forest mostly cottonwood boxelder with minor amounts silver maple. This mostly describes the Southern 1/3rd of the City. Composition could change as we progress Northward. e · NuisancelInvasive vegetation in forests. Mostly European buckthorn distributed in patches and comprising 25 % - 80 % of shrub layer composition. Mostly found on City owned land. Lesser amounts of garlic mustard and honeysuckle species also occur. · NuisancelInvasive vegetation in wetlands. Mostly reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. Comprise 20 % - 65 % of vegetative cover. Not present in every wetland. Should remain consistent throughout study. · Impervious surface, plenty of it in Southern 1/3rd of City. Expect approx. 25 % of City to be impervious? . · Residential areas - Trend towards the mixed deciduous/conifers code in the MLLCCS with approx./ 60 % canopy cover . · Remnant native plant communities - very low to nonexistent so far. No remnant prairie or restorable oak savanna encountered . · Connectivity of green space and forest cover - very good for an older Metro city · Sensitive habitats and species, no unknowns detected, but this will likely change as study progresses · Deer browse is low to moderate in southern 1/3 of City · Goose populations are very high when preferred habitats occur together (mowed lawns and water) Thank You e Questions? .