Loading...
06-22-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 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, June 22,2009. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Keysser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes June 8, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Amendment #1 - 9405 Medicine Lake Road - CU-67 A 1 Applicant: Winner Gas/Convenience Store, George Kabalan Address: 9405 Medicine Lake Road Purpose: To allow the applicant to rent U-Haul trucks at his existing location in the Commercial zoning district Grimes referred to a location map and noted that this property is at the intersection of Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road. He explained that the applicant would like to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit for this property to allow him to rent two U- Haul trucks along with his gas station, car wash and convenience store. Grimes explained that the original gas station did not require a Conditional Use Permit. In 1995 when the owner wanted to install his car wash, the City required him to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. He referred to the existing Conditional Use Permit and the site plan and showed the area where the applicant would like to park the rental trucks. Grimes stated that he would like the trucks to be located in the two furthest west parking spaces behind the building and not where the applicant is proposing in order to allow better access to the car wash. Grimes stated that the applicant has been renting U-Haul trucks for a couple of years. However, it was only recently brought to his attention because there were several trucks parked along an easement area which was supposed to be posted "no parking" according to the original Conditional Use Permit. He added that he allowed the applicant to continue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 2 renting two trucks during the time it took to go through this Conditional Use Permit amendment process and upon visiting the site this evening he noticed that there are currently two trucks and two trailers parked on this lot which is disappointing because that was not his agreement with the applicant. Grimes referred to the site plan and stated that originally the City required 15 parking spaces on this site for the gas station/convenience store. He stated that he did a recalculation of the parking spaces needed based on current parking requirements and feels 7 parking spaces will meet the needs of this property. He said he doesn't think the number of parking spaces will be an issue; however, cars should not be parked in the access easement area and the "no parking" signs should be installed per the original Conditional Use Permit agreement. Grimes stated that another issue he is concerned about is the non-conforming signage on the property. He explained that the City's sign code administrator, Roger McCabe, has been dealing with the property owner regarding the amount of signage on the property. Therefore he is recommending as a condition of approval that the signage on the property be brought into conformance by August 31,2009. Kluchka asked Grimes to clarify what the sign problem is. Grimes showed the Commissioners photos of the site and stated that the applicant probably has double the amount of signage allowed. Waldhauser asked about the allowed amount of signage. Grimes said he doesn't know what the allowed amount of signage is for this property because some of the signs may be "grandfathered" in. He added that the sign code is not part of the zoning code and suggested that the applicant meet with Roger McCabe to come up with a sign plan in order to bring his property into conformance. Grimes reiterated that if the applicant rents two U-Haul trucks or trailers he doesn't think this proposal will be an issue. If however there starts to be more trucks or trailers on the property there could be issues with the access to the car wash and the un-striped parking area in the back of the building. Kluchka asked how many available parking spaces would be available for rental activity. Grimes referred to the site plan and pointed out that there are 4 parking spaces in the front of the building and 11 spaces behind the building. He reiterated that he feels the parking requirement for this property can drop from 15 spaces to 7 spaces leaving them with 8 spaces more than what is required. Kluchka asked how many spaces would be used for the rental trucks. Grimes stated that the applicant is asking for permission to have 2 rental trucks on his property. Waldhauser asked if some of the spaces behind the building are not usable for parking because of the need to access the car wash. Grimes said it is his understanding that the spaces in the back haven't been striped because there really isn't a need for them. Waldhauser asked why it would be a problem to allow the applicant to have more than 2 rental trucks on this property since they have enough parking spaces. Grimes said the Planning Commission could recommend that the applicant be allowed to have more than 2 rental trucks however he is concerned at this point that more trucks would be parked on this property than are allowed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 3 McCarty referred to the signage requirements and asked about the City's recourse on businesses that don't comply with the sign code requirements. Grimes stated that it would be considered a misdemeanor violation of the City Code, however staff likes to work with people first to try to bring their properties into conformance. If that doesn't work then the matter could be taken to court. McCarty asked if the owner has been approached by the City regarding the non- conforming sign issues. Grimes said it is his understanding that Roger McCabe has spoken with the property owner regarding the signage at this property. Waldhauser referred to the easement on the east side of the parking lot and asked if landscaping or planting can be done in easement areas. Grimes said that plants can be placed in easement areas. Kluchka asked Grimes what part of the City Code or what department deals with the striping of parking lots. Grimes said the Planning and Public Works Departments would work with applicants regarding the striping of their parking lot. Kluchka asked if it would be appropriate to require as a condition of approval that the parking lot be appropriately striped to encourage good circulation and access to the car wash. George Kabalan, Applicant, stated that he has parked U-Haul trucks on this lot and in the easement area for 2 years now and no one has said anything. He agreed that Mr. Grimes allowed him to keep renting 2 trucks during this Conditional Use Permit amendment process and that the 2 trailers Mr. Grimes saw on the property earlier this evening belong to an employee who wasn't aware that there were only supposed to be 2 trucks on the property. He added that the trailers will be removed in the morning. He stated that he would like to be allowed to rent two trucks to help him improve his business. He referred to the signage issues and said he would work with Roger McCabe to come up with a signage plan. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he has spoken with Mr. McCabe in the past. Kabalan said he has not. Waldhauser asked about the "no parking" signs that are supposed to be located on the west access road. Kabalan said there are no signs regarding parking at all on his property. Waldhauser noted that the requirement regarding the installation of "no parking" signs pre-dates this current property owner. Kluchka asked the applicant if it would be helpful or useful to him to have more than 2 rental trucks. Kabalan said it would help him get more business if he could have more trucks but he would do whatever the City allows him to do. Grimes asked the applicant about the size of trucks he would be renting. Kabalan said the longest truck he would rent will be 17 feet. Waldhauser referred to the 5 parking spaces behind the building that aren't routinely used and asked if that is where people drive to access the car wash. Kabalan said he would be willing to re-strip the parking lot in order to make parking, circulation and access easier. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 4 Cera asked the applicant to describe the rental business. Kabalan said he would have 2 trucks and people can rent them for "in town" or local use. He said there would not be customers dropping off trucks from different locations. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Kimberly Vedo, representing Hillsboro Court Apartments, 2911 Hillsboro Ave. N., New Hope, said she opposes this proposed use because she doesn't think it's attractive to the community particularly with the improvements other property owners in the area have made and this use will not enhance the community at all. She said that typically U-Haul dealerships are found in communities that have a lot of economic and crime issues. She added that this corner with the gas station and liquor store is already not very attractive and a U-Haul dealer won't help the situation. Waldhauser asked Vedo if her concern is just the appearance of the U-Haul vehicles or something else. Vedo said she thinks the U-Haul trucks would reflect negatively on the neighborhood and would give people a bad perception of the area. She added that a U- Haul dealership is not something she would consider to be an attractive attribute when marketing her apartments. McCarty stated that the U-Haul dealership could be seen as an attractive amenity to the apartment residents. Vedo said that she generally doesn't encourage her residents to move. Waldhauser questioned if it would make a difference from an appearance stand point if the U-Haul trucks were located behind the gas station. Vedo said that would be preferable to having them in the front or on the side. She added that there are just certain things that don't necessarily reflect positively on a community such as pawn shops, U-Hauls, check cashing stores, tobacco shops, etc. and those types of things fall into neighborhoods that are not as desirable as she would like hers to be. Grimes referred to the location map and reiterated where he is recommending the trucks be parked. He said he thinks it will be hard for people to see the trucks if they are parked where he is recommending and not in the easement area. He said he thinks the signage on the site is more of an issue. Eck asked Vedo who she is referring to when she says "we". Vedo said she is speaking for the owner and partnership group for the property. Eck asked if she is speaking on behalf of the renters or if any of the renters have complained. Vedo said she is not speaking on behalf of the renters and she hasn't had any complaints yet, but typically she hears from renters about issues after the fact. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. McCarty asked the applicant how long he has had U-Haul trucks at his location. Kabalan said he has been renting the U-Haul trucks for two years. He added that he realizes the Sinclair station across the street is newer but that is not what is important. What is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 5 important is how he serves people in the community. He said he is willing to find a solution regarding the signage and he is willing to park the trucks in the specified location but he feels no one from the apartments will be able to see the trucks. Waldhauser said she doesn't have too much concern about this proposal except for the signage issues. She said the appearance of this property is important because it is an entrance to Golden Valley. She noted that there is landscaping in the front and trees on the highway side of the property, however she wishes there were trees between this property and the McDonald's next door to the east. She said there seems to be adequate parking even with a couple of trucks parked in the back. She added that it would be nice to have the parking clarified with "no parking" signs in the easement area and striping to indicate where cars should go. Schmidgall said he doesn't want to cripple a thriving business but this property is visually chaotic and he is disappointed that it has been out of compliance with the sign ordinance for 14 years and the "no parking" signs haven't been installed in 14 years. He would really like to see this property brought into compliance with the original Conditional Use Permit. He said he would also like to limit the number of U-Haul trucks to 2 in order to keep the visual chaos to a minimum. McCarty agreed that the number of rental trucks should be limited to 2 and added that the City also needs to do its part to enforce the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit. Cera also agreed with the idea of limiting the number of trucks to 2 and suggested a condition be placed on the approval that the property should be brought into compliance before the proposal goes to the City Council. Kluchka said he agrees that progress toward sign compliance should be shown. Waldhauser reviewed the conditions in the original Conditional Use Permit. She stated that the suggested new conditions for this amendment request are as follows: 1) The parking spaces on the property shall be clearly designated and striped and the two spaces for the rental trucks should be clearly marked; 2) All signage shall meet the City's sign code requirements by no later than August 31, 2009 and 3) "no parking" signs shall be installed per the Fire Marshall, along the west side of the shared driveway adjacent to TH 169 by no later than August 31,2009. Kluchka suggested they add a condition regarding landscape screening of the parking area for adjacent properties. McCarty said he would be in favor of requiring landscape screening if there were adjacent residential properties but it doesn't seem fair to put the landscape cost burden on this applicant. The Commissioners agreed. McCarty asked about the process for revoking a Conditional Use Permit if the conditions are not met. Grimes said staff typically tries to work with property owners before revoking their Conditional Use Permits. He added that for a Conditional Use Permit to be revoked staff would have to receive a complaint or notice some gross violation of the Conditional Use Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 6 McCarty said he is concerned that the deadline of August 31 to bring the property into compliance is arbitrary and won't mean anything to the applicant or the City so he'd like to see some progress on the site before the applicant is allowed to go to the City Council. Cera agreed he would like to see some progress before the proposal gets approved by the City Council. Grimes stated that the applicant has been working with Roger McCabe to bring his property into conformance with the sign code. Waldhauser asked if the sign code deals with aesthetic issues or if signage is only based on allowing a certain amount. Grimes said there are no design standards for signs other than in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. Kluchka asked the Commissioners for their opinion about how visible the rental trucks will be to the rest of the neighborhood. Schmidgall said he is happy with Mr. Grimes' recommendation for the location for the rental trucks. Kluchka suggested that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan showing the parking lot striping, designated truck rental spaces and the location of any signs. Grimes agreed that would be a good idea. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit at 9405 Medicine Lake Road to allow the applicant to rent U-Haul trucks at his existing location in the Commercial zoning district with the following conditions: 1. A new site plan updating the 9/1/95 site plan shall be submitted and be made a part of this permit. The two equipment parking spaces shall be the two spaces south of the store and closest to TH 169. There shall be a total of 9 parking spaces for customers, employees and equipment display. The parking spaces on the property shall be clearly designated and striped and the two spaces for the rental trucks shall be clearly marked 2. The property may be used as a gas/convenience store with one automated car wash bay. Also, up to two trucks or trailers may be displayed for rent on the site in the location identified in the above Condition NO.1. 3. All signage on the site will meet the requirements of the City's sign code by no later than August 31,2009. 4. "No parking" signs shall be installed per the Fire Marshal along the west side of the shared driveway adjacent to TH 169 by no later than August 31,2009. 5. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 6. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 7 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the District 281 Divestiture Committee meeting he attended where they discussed options for what to do with seven school district properties. Waldhauser reported on a 1,000 friends of MN meeting she attended where they discussed landscaping and redeveloping old properties and what other communities have done in regard to landscaping. 5. Other Business McCarty asked about proposed new language regarding decks, porches, stoops, etc. Grimes stated that staff is still working on the proposed language and will bring it to a future Planning Commission meeting. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.