Loading...
12-13-10 PC MinutesRegular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 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, December 13, 2010. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes October 25, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 25, 2010 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision - 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace - SU03-01 Applicant: David and Sandra Raley Address: 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace Purpose: The applicants are requesting that the property line between the two properties be moved 9 feet to the east Grimes referred to a survey of the properties and explained that the applicant, who owns both properties, is proposing to move the lot line between the properties 9 feet to the east. He stated that both properties after subdividing will meet all of the City's requirements. Cera asked why the applicant is subdividing the properties. Grimes said he thought it was due to a pond that is located on the existing property line. Kluchka asked if the lots would be big enough to divide again in the future. Grimes said no because corner lots need 100 feet of frontage. Segelbaum noted that the new lot line will make the house on Lot 4 (5360 Lowry Terrace) be right at the 15-foot setback line. He expressed concern about the applicant creating a hardship for future homeowners wanting to construct an addition on the west side of the house. Grimes agreed that the existing home on Lot 4 could not add a second story because the side yard setback wouldn't be big enough, but other additions could be made to the house without requiring variances. Kluchka asked how future homeowners would be informed that an addition could not be constructed on the west side of the house on Lot 4. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 Page 2 Grimes said the history of the property would be located in City files and the City tries to educate people about setback requirements, but ultimately it is buyer beware. Cera asked what the size of the lots would be after they were subdivided. Grimes stated that one lot would be approximately 19,000 square feet and the other lot would be approximately 16,000 square feet. David Raley, 5380 Lowry Terrace, Applicant, stated that he has a pond on his property and he would like to move the lot line because he doesn't want to infringe on the adjacent property when mowing or doing maintenance. Waldhauser asked about the age of the homes. Raley stated that both homes were moved onto the lots approximately 9 years ago. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has any plans to construct an addition on the west side of the house at 5360 Lowry Terrace. Raley said no. Waldhauser reiterated that the implications of making Lot 4 narrower would not impact the City, but it may impact future homeowners. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Segelbaum stated that he realizes a subsequent homeowners proposal would stand on its own merit but he questioned if there is a way to note that if a future homeowner at 5360 Lowry Terrace were to ask the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance it would more than likely be denied because the hardship would have been created by the property owner. Waldhauser said she doesn't think it's the Planning Commission's place to protect future homeowners. Grimes noted that conditions have been placed on subdivisions in the past regarding new construction but it would be difficult to place conditions on a proposal like this. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the minor subdivision request for the properties located at 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace subject to the following: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's email, dated November 24, 2010, shall become part of this approval. 3. The Proposed Sketch, submitted by the applicants, dated March 18, 2002, shall become part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 Page 3 3. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment -Final Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75, Amendment #3 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center. Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that they reviewed and recommended the approval of the Preliminary Plan for this proposal in October. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plan in November and now the applicant is back with the Final Plan proposal. He explained that the Planning Commission's role is to decide if the Final Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plan approved by Council. Grimes referred to a site plan and noted that Menards has made several of the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and the City Council including: creating landscape islands, providing a bicycle parking area, increasing landscaping on the rear and sides of the building and adding approximately 26 parking spaces to the rear of the building to be used if needed. Grimes noted a discrepancy in the plans and the staff report regarding the finish used on the exterior. He said his understanding is that the front of the building will be buff colored, brick stamped concrete panels. The sides will be buff colored, raked concrete panels and the back will be gray colored, raked concrete panels. Because the back of the building will not be visible from the street, the standard gray panel is acceptable. Grimes referred to the City Council's suggestion that a sidewalk be added along Hampshire Ave. He explained that upon review, staff does not feel a sidewalk in that location would be in the City's best interest because of topography issues and the railroad crossing. It is also not identified on the City's sidewalk plan and would reduce the amount of water infiltration and take away from the storm water management efforts being proposed. Grimes referred to the City Council's condition that snow storage shall not be allowed on the site. He stated that Menards is asking that snow storage be allowed unless parking becomes an issue, then snow would be removed. Waldhauser questioned if snow storage is also an aesthetic or a visibility issue. Grimes said it is a parking issue. Eck said he is skeptical of the adequacy of the amount of parking being proposed. He said he has been to Menards several times and the parking lot has been almost full. He also questioned how customers would know about the spaces available in back of the building. Kluchka stated that the parking spaces in the back of the building would only be used for employee parking if needed; it would not be used for customer parking. Segelbaum questioned if the parking lot is being used as efficiently as possible. He asked if there is a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 Page 4 reduction in the number of parking spaces from what is currently there. Grimes stated that there are approximately 20 more parking spaces in this proposal. Eck asked why staff is recommending that snow storage be allowed if there are no issues with parking when the City Council said there shall be no snow storage allowed. Grimes explained that Menards asked that the condition be changed to allow snow storage unless there is a problem with parking and staff agreed that their request could go before the Planning Commission for review however, he agrees with the Council that there should be no snow storage allowed. Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, showed pictures of the color and the texture of the concrete they are proposing to use. He explained how the back of the building would not be visible when looking from the south to the north. He referred to the site plan and noted the area that could be used for employee parking if necessary. Kluchka said he has a significant concern about the view when driving to Menards from the west. He said it will look like a gray box and he doesn't see that there was any design attention paid to making the southwest corner of the store more pleasing. He suggested a plaza approach or something that matches the garden center area or another way to make "the box" more transparent so it doesn't look like a box or a warehouse. Morrissey stated that the Council had similar concerns and pointed out that only a small corner of that facade will be visible and there will be trees and fencing in that location as well. He said he is not sure Menards would be willing to change their prototype. Kluchka said the design doesn't address the human scale and because this property is a major focal point he doesn't think it is responsible to have the design look so stark. Morrissey explained that they can't mimic the garden center area on the west side of the building because they are using that area for pallet racking storage. He referred to the site plan and pointed out the pallet storage areas. Kluchka asked Morrissey to address the snow storage issue. Morrissey said he thought the snow storage issue could be handled the same as the parking issue. If there becomes a parking issue then they will remove the snow. McCarty said that if the Council has already said there should be no snow storage allowed than there should be no storage allowed. Grimes agreed. Kluchka added that mounds of snow won't increase the aesthetic appeal in the corridor. Morrissey said his understanding was that the City Council's concern regarding snow was parking, not aesthetics. Grimes reiterated that it is the Planning Commission's job to find if this Final Plan proposal is consistent with the Preliminary Plan already approved by the City Council. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that Menards will have to have a parking plan in place regarding how they are going to handle their parking on busy days. Waldhauser referred to pedestrian navigation within the parking lot and suggested a sidewalk be installed back to Laurel along the west side. Morrissey said there is not enough room on the west side of the site to add a sidewalk. Waldhauser questioned the size of the existing pylon sign and said she thought a two story building would provide enough visibility. Morrissey said there will be 381 square feet of signage on the building and the pylon sign is 150 square feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 Page 5 Waldhauser referred to the landscaping plan and suggested more trees be placed at the front of the store. McCarty said he appreciates Menards adding a second access on Hampshire. He addressed the issue of aesthetics and said getting rid of the flags, logo and wood columns would be a cost savings and get rid of the "woodsy" look and be more like the Eden Prairie store. He added that this is in the Mixed Use zoning district and is competing with the new West End development in St. Louis Park. Morrissey explained that this front facade is identifiably Menards and is Menards preferred elevation. He added that this store is similar to the Eden Prairie store. Schmidgall agreed that the flags, logos and columns are a part of Menards identity and signage. McCarty said he understands that, but he would strongly encourage that the prototype look be changed. Waldhauser showed a photo of different building that she feels is attractive and also encouraged Menards to update their look. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggested a condition be added as follows: an overflow parking plan shall be filed with the City that proactively redirects customers to legal options to include the employee use of deferred parking spaces. He also suggested there be some communication plan to acknowledge the innovative storm water management that Menards is proposing. Grimes added that the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission may like to coordinate with Menards as well. Waldhauser referred to the conditions of approval in the staff report and summarized that condition number six should be modified to state that there shall be no snow storage. Condition number seven should be modified to state that the buff color being proposed shall be used on the front and sides of the building, however, only the front will be brick stamped. The sides and rear can be raked concrete. She added that she would also like to add a condition to consider a more attractive facade on the southwest corner. Kluchka said he voted no on the Preliminary Plan because it did not meet four of the narrative conditions and he will be voting the same way for this plan to reiterate that point. He said he believes the use of architectural detail would have significant appeal and draw people to the area. McCarty said he understands the Planning Commission's vote is not design oriented but rather to affirm that the Final Plan conforms to the Preliminary Plan approved by the City Council. He said he believes the Final Plan does conform to the approved Preliminary Plan but he has issues with the design and the use of the site. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the Final Design Plan for Menards PU-75, Amendment #3 with the following conditions. Kluchka voted no. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 13, 2010 Page 6 rear, right, and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan, and utility plan. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memos from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated October 5, 2010 and December 6, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated December 1, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing pylon sign may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by Menards management or the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to implement a plan (which may include off-site parking and the conversion of a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking as noted on the plans). 6. No snow storage shall be allowed on the site. 7. The precast panels on the sides of the building shall be the same buff aggregate color as the panels on the front facing Wayzata Boulevard. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser gave a report on the Bottineau Transitway open house held on November 29, 2010 at St. Margaret Mary's church. 5. Other Business Waldhauser said she would like the Commissioners to be thinking about issues that could be added to a Planning Commission work plan she is working on. Grimes invited the Planning Commission to attend the January 11 Council/Manager meeting where there will be a presentation on senior housing. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm. II i/ Lester Eck, Secretary