Loading...
04-27-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 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, April 27,2009. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes February 23, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the fourth paragraph on page three and noted that the word "said" is missing at the beginning of the second sentence. Waldhauser referred to the first sentence in the first paragraph on page seven and noted that the word "it" was in the wrong place. Eck referred to the second sentence in the first paragraph on page seven and stated the word "infrastructural" should be changed to "infrastructure". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 23 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 6210 Wayzata Blvd. - CU-125 Applicant - Art Holdings Address - 6210 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose - To allow for the sale and repair of electric vehicles in the Mixed Use zoning district Hogeboom explained that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow B2B Segway/Segway Minnesota to sell and service electric vehicles in the Art Holdings building located at 6210 Wayzata Blvd. He noted that the property is zoned Mixed Use and is guided on the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use. Hogeboom stated that this is the first request for a Conditional Use Permit in the Mixed Use zoning district. He explained that the Mixed Use zoning section of the City Code has a provision in it that allows conditional uses in the Commercial zoning district to be permitted uses in the Mixed Use zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 2 Hogeboom referred to his staff report and discussed the ten factors used when reviewing a Conditional Use application. He stated that staff feels there will be no negative effects as a result of this proposed use and has determined that this proposed use does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, it will not affect property values and it will not impact traffic in the area therefore, staff is recommending approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. All signage must adhere to City sign guidelines for the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. 2. The number of employees on the site at anyone time shall be limited to twelve. 3. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Saturday from 8 am to 7 pm. 4. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 5. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 6. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Kluchka stated that condition number three seems too restrictive and asked if it is necessary. Hogeboom agreed and stated that the hours of operation listed in the conditions of approval were taken from the applicant's narrative. McCarty asked if condition number two regarding the number of employees is based on the square footage of the building or the applicant's narrative. Hogeboom said the number of employees was based on the applicant's narrative. Keysser asked if the number of employees is based on the available parking. Hogeboom noted that this property has adequate parking for this use. Eck questioned the relationship between Art Holdings, C. Chase Company and Segway. Hogeboom said it is his understanding that C. Chase Company is related to Art Holdings who owns the building and that Segway is the company proposing to operate the proposed business. Grimes clarified that C. Chase Company is the real estate broker for Art Holdings. Kluchka said one of the things he looks for in proposals in the Mixed Use zoning district is how they measure against the allowed or conditional uses of the former zoning of the property. He asked if the Mixed Use zoning designation has made the proposed use more or less difficult to get. Hogeboom said the Mixed Use zoning district has made it easier in this case for the applicant because permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial zoning district are allowed in the Mixed Use zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Kluchka referred to applicant's narrative regarding their proposed sidewalk and the applicant using that sidewalk to display and demonstrate their product. He asked if staff feels that is an appropriate use for a sidewalk. Hogeboom said ordinarily that would not be an appropriate use for a sidewalk but in this case the proposed sidewalk is on their property, not in city right-of-way. He said he feels that part of the intent of the Mixed Use zoning district is to have some retail uses brought out to the sidewalk. He added that when the applicant installs the proposed sidewalk he will have to work with the city's.Engineering Department regarding necessary permits. Kluchka said he would like the Planning Commission to have. additional discussion about allowing product sales and display on sidewalks when the intent in the 1-394 Corridor was to encourage restaurants and seating on sidewalks. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 3 Waldhauser said she realizes that there will be some industrial, commercial and office uses in the Mixed Use zoning district but she thinks the City is really looking for retail businesses that serve individuals and have a street presence. She stated that in this case it looks like the showroom is going to be on the second level and the first level will be a service operation but it looks like the street front area is the display area that Art Holdings has had at this property. Greg Hennes, Owner, Art Holdings, 6210 Wayzata Blvd., stated that the building is 26,000 square feet and he is looking for a tenant to take over part of the space because it is too big for Art Holdings. He explained that Art Holdings will continue to operate in this building and will occupy approximately two-thirds of the building; B2B Segway will occupy approximately one-third of the building. He stated that the upper floor for Art Holdings is used for office, showroom and retail space. For Segway the upper floor would be used for office and retail. The lower level for Art Holdings is the production and picture framing area and for Segway it would be the area they use to service the vehicles. He added that Art Holdings currently has 24 employees with 51 parking spaces with proof of parking for an additional 36 parking spaces. Hennes referred to the sidewalk that has been discussed and explained that it won't be a city sidewalk. It will be a sidewalk on their property running along the perimeter of the building and used mainly to gain access to the east parking lot. He confirmed that there would also be some display of product on the sidewalk as well. Brad Benyas, B2B Segway, explained that B2B Segway is their commercial division and Segway of Minnesota is their retail division. He talked about his current location in an industrial/commercial park and stated that he would like to have more of a retail presence which is why they would like to move to the proposed location in Golden Valley. He added that their product is all electric transportation including scooters, bikes, motorcycles and Segways. Keysser asked about Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) products. Benyas said NEV products have more of a niche market and his business would have some NEV products but they would not be his main focus. Keysser asked if the products being sold are "street legal". Benyas said yes and stated that the Segway product is classified as a pedestrian vehicle so they have to follow the same laws as pedestrians. Grimes asked Benyas if he feels comfortable with the area that will be used for test drives. Benyas said yes and added that he feels there is enough room on the property for test drives. Keysser asked Benyas how many customers per day he envisions. Benyas said he currently has approximately 20 customers per day but he hopes to have more once he is located in the 1-394 Corridor. Grimes asked if individuals purchase Segways or if they are purchased by companies. Benyas stated that approximately 65% of his sales are commercial and 35% are retail. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 4 Grimes asked Benyas if his intent is to display his products on the sidewalk during the day and bring them indoors at night. Benyas said yes. He added that in the future there may be some electric cars stored outside. Keysser asked Benyas if he has any concerns about traffic during customer's test drives. Benyas said no because it is a fairly quiet area. Eck asked how people would know about this business. Benyas said his customers mainly find him. There is also some national advertising and he does a lot of trade show work. Kluchka asked if there are bicycle racks on the property for the employees. Hennes stated that none of his current employees bike to work but they do ride the bus and carpool. Cera referred to the condition in the staff report regarding the hours of operation and asked Benyas how he felt about it. Benyas said he would appreciate some flexibility regarding his hours of operation. Grimes asked Benyas if he could sell on Sundays. Benyas said he will be applying for a dealership license but he won't be able to sell his cars or motorcycles on Sundays. Grimes said he would feel comfortable removing the condition regarding the hours of operation. Waldhauser noted that currently there isn't residential property in the area but that could change in the future so they may want to consider limiting evening hours. Benyas said his current hours are 8 am to 7 pm on weekdays and by appointment on weekends. He added that with his larger retail presence he may like to be open on weekends. Cera stated that if the applicant wants to be open on weekends the condition regarding hours would have to be changed or removed. Grimes suggested allowing the hours of operation to be from 7 am to 9 pm every day. The Commissioners agreed. Hennes asked if the stipulations for Segway apply to the entire building. Grimes said the stipulations would only apply to this proposed use. Waldhauser asked if there needs to be a limit on the number of employees. Benyas said he doesn't foresee having more than 12 employees. Grimes said the parking works for 12 employees but they could be flexible and allow for 15 employees. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked why there needs to be a limit on the parking or the number of employees if there is already proof of parking on the property. Grimes said he agrees that there probably isn't a need for limits on parking or the number of employees. Grimes stated that he would like to add a condition of approval that the Segway space is limited to what they've shown on the site plan they submitted with their application. Kluchkaasked if there needs to be a stipulation regarding the sidewalk not being located in the right-of-way. Grimes said the sidewalk requirements will be handled in the grading and erosion control permit process if one is required. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 5 Eck noted that the Segway showroom is on the second floor and asked about the ramp mentioned in the applicant's narrative. Benyas explained that the building is two stories in the back and one story in the front. The ramp will be on the loading dock in the service area. Benyas referred to the site plan submitted with the application and asked if slight modifications could still be made. Grimes asked the applicant to bring a final plan to him before the proposal goes to the City Council meeting. McCarty asked Grimes why the City would want to limit this use to how it is shown on the site plan. He asked whatwould happen if the applicant wanted to use additional space in the building. Grimes explained that a Conditional Use Permit is based on a specific use and the applicant would have to come back and amend the Conditional Use Permit if he wants to make changes to an approved Conditional Use Permit. McCarty asked about the process if B2B Segway wanted to add a couple hundred of square feet to the space. Grimes said technically any change to approved plan would require an amended Conditional Use Permit. Benyas said he would appreciate some flexibility in order to grow his business in the future. He asked if the Conditional Use Permit could be for the entire building. Grimes said he would like to see how this operation works before the City says it can be bigger because this is something new and different and it will probably be awhile before they would need to expand their space. He said he wants to wait and see if there are any issues or concerns regarding this use and requiring the applicant to come back for amendments would give the City the opportunity to address any issues that may arise. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale and repair of electric vehicles at 6210 Wayzata Blvd. with the following conditions: 1. All signage must adhere to City sign guidelines for the 1.394 Mixed Use Zoning District. 2. The hours of normal operation shall not exceed Monday through Sunday from 7 am to 9 pm. 3. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 4. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 5. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 6. The site plan submitted by Art Holdings and prepared by MS&R shall become a part of this approval. 7. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 6 3. Informal Public Hearing -Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Extension of Time for Submittal of Final PUD Plan Applicant - City of Golden Valley Purpose - To amend Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A) (Planned Unit Development Chapter of the Zoning Code) to allow for Extension of Time for Submittal of Final PUD Plan Grimes explained that staff recently looked at granting an extension for a Final PUD submittal and it was discovered by the City Attorney that there weren't provisions in the Code that specifically allow the City Council to grant time extensions for PUDs even though they had done so in the past. He added that the City Attorney and staff believe that amending the PUD language to permit an extension of up to 180 days by the City Council is appropriate with the understanding that the extension is at the sole discretion of the City Council and that the City Council may add conditions at the time granting the extension. Cera asked if the Planning Commission would have a role in granting extensions. Grimes said no, it would be the decision on the City Council. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. The Commissioners agreed that this proposed change to the Zoning Code makes sense. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A) (Planned Unit Development Chapter of the Zoning Code) to allow for extension of time for submittal of Final PUD Plan. 4. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-02 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan Grimes reminded the Commissioners that this item was brought to them recently asking that they review the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area to confirm that it conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. At that time the new Comprehensive Plan had not yet been approved by the City Council. It has since been adopted by the City Council so staff feels it is now a more appropriate time for the Planning Commission to find that the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan Project Area conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. He referred to Jeanne Andre, Assistant Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's memo regarding the changes that have been made to the Redevelopment Plan and how the Planning Commissioner's comments have been incorporated into the Plan. He also referred to his memo where he lists findings regarding the conformance of the Redevelopment Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 2009 Page 7 Kluchka thanked Grimes for providing the findings and asked that findings be done in the future on projects like this. Waldhauser said she thinks the Redevelopment Plan is excellent. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to approve Resolution 09-02. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. 6. Other Business Waldhauser asked staff if there is information available regarding the number of housing units in the City that are owner occupied. Hogeboom said yes and that he could provide that information to the Commission. Waldhauser said she is curious if the market has driven more homes to become rental properties. Grimes and Hogeboom discussed foreclosures in Golden Valley and stated that the City has been working directly with the banks regarding maintenance issues on foreclosed homes. Kluchka asked that records be kept regarding proposals in the 1-394 Corridor District. He said he would like to know if approvals are easier, harder or the same to obtain as they were when the properties were zoned differently. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. ~lita~a-