11-14-11 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
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,
November 14, 2011. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall, Segelbaum 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
October 24, 2011 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph on page 3 and asked that it be clarified to
explain that the process to re-designate the properties "on the General Land Use Plan
Map, in the Comprehensive Plan" could take up to six months.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment— 7200
Wayzata Blvd, Lupient Infiniti — PU-66 Amendment#4
Applicant: Lupient Infiniti
Addresses: 7200 Wayzata Boulevard
Purpose: To allow for the expansion of the showroom and entry of the Infiniti
dealership plus a car wash addition to the north end of the building.
Hogeboom explained the applicant's proposal to amend their existing PUD in order to add
a car wash bay and expand the showroom and entryway. He noted that this proposal
could not be considered as a Minor PUD Amendment because the footprint of the building
will be expanding more than 3%.
Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this request. He referred to the
PUD section of the City Code and read the criteria used when considering approval of
PUD proposals. Segelbaum stated that the criteria Hogeboom referred to applies when
considering a new PUD proposal. Hogeboom agreed and said it is still helpful to use the
criteria as a guide.
Cera noted that the property is zoned Mixed Use and asked how this proposal fits within
that zoning district. Hogeboom stated that that PUD is considered to be a separate zoning
district and since this PUD already exists the Mixed Use requirements wouldn't apply.
However, if this were a new proposal (not an amendment) it would require a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) because uses that require a CUP in the Commercial Zoning District
also require a CUP in the Mixed Use Zoning District.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 2
Kluchka asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the road on the front side
(south) of the building. Grimes stated that the road along the south from Pennsylvania to
Louisiana is privately owned and maintained by Lupient. Kluchka asked if the Planning
Commission can add a conditional of approval stating that the road must be repaired.
Grimes stated that the City can require that the road be maintained however, he knows
that there are poor soil conditions in this area which makes maintenance difficult. Kluchka
said he would like staff to review the condition of the roadway before this proposal goes to
the City Council.
Ken Nordby, NAI Architects, representing Lupient showed the Commission photos of the
existing building and renderings of the building after the proposed additions are complete.
He explained that as a result of the proposed addition they will lose four of their inventory
parking spaces, but no customer parking spaces. He referred to the maintenance of the
roadway and noted that Lupient spent $11,000 this year on maintenance due to the soil
conditions.
Waldhauser referred to the parking area south of the proposed new glass wall feature and
said she is surprised there is no landscaping proposed for that area. She asked if the
parking spaces in that area are necessary and if it could be used instead for green space.
Nordby stated that is a convenient spot for customers to park and added that the parent
company mandating the design will not allow landscaping in front of the proposed glass
wall feature because they want a clear view from the outside into the showroom.
Kisch asked about the rationale of moving the handicap parking stalls from where they
are currently located to the south of the building. He noted that in the proposed new
design people will have to cross the driveway to get to the entryway. Nordby explained
that the proposed new location (on the east side of the building) for the handicap parking
sta!!s will be more accessible and are actually closer to front entry door. Kisch suggested
that a crosswalk be added from the handicap stalls to the front door.
Kluchka referred to the existing trees located between the showroom and the service area
and asked if they are being removed and if the applicant has submitted a landscaping
plan. Nordby said they have not done a landscaping plan, but that they would be willing to
do one. Waldhauser agreed that there is very little green space and what little there is will
be removed.
Kluchka asked if the site is in conformance with the lighting ordinance. Nordby said the
lighting on the site is not changing. Hogeboom noted that since the lighting is not
changing a lighting plan is not required.
Cera asked about the barbershop idea that had been proposed in the past for the main
Lupient dealership building to the east. Nordby said that Lupient never went forward with
the barbershop proposal.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. See and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 3
Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed PUD amendment because it will be an
improvement to the area. However, he would like to see more green space on the site.
Kisch agreed and stated that he would like to add as a condition of approval that the area
between the handicap parking stalls and the front area be striped. Segelbaum also
agreed and said he thinks the proposal meets the criteria in the PUD ordinance.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of PUD #66, Amendment#4 to allow for the expansion of the
showroom and entry of the Infiniti dealership plus a car wash addition to the north end of
the building subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans
were prepared for Lupient Automotive Group and include the following: existing and
demolition site plan, proposed site plan, existing floor plans, orientation plans floor plans —
building A, floor plans — building B and exterior elevations.
2. All recommendations and requirements outlined in the memorandum from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 27, 2011 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A landscape plan showing some restored green space shall be submitted before the
Preliminary Plan goes to the City Council for consideration.
4. The walkway between the handicap parking stalls and the front entry shall be striped.
5. Staff will review the condition of the private roadway along the south property line to
determine if any maintenance is required.
6. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300
Douglas Drive North — Rezoning from Single Family (R-1) Residential to
Medium Density (R-3) Residential -Z012-17
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North
Purpose: To consider rezoning the properties from Single Family (R-1)
Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the
Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map.
Hogeboom referred to a map of the properties and explained the proposal to rezone them
to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into Conformance
with the General Land Use Plan Map. The land use designation on the General Land Use
Plan Map for these properties is High Density Residential.
Kluchka asked about the mailing list for the public hearing notifications. Hogeboom stated
that the property owners received individual letters and property owners within 500 feet of
the subject properties received notification for this public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 4
Segelbaum asked about the impact to the existing homes and if their use would be
restricted. Hogeboom said the properties, if rezoned, would be considered to be non-
conforming due to either the zoning or setback requirements. He explained that the
homes can be maintained and improved but they could not expand.
Kisch clarified the Zoning Map designations that would work in each the General Land
Use Plan Map categories as follows: properties zoned R-1 and R-2 would be allowed in
the Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-2 and R-3 would be allowed in the
Medium-Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-3 & R-4 would be allowed in
the Medium-High Density land use category and properties zoned R-3 and R-4 would be
allowed in the High Density land use category.
Kisch asked about the rationale in not allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning
District. Grimes explained that allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning District
would make long-term development more difficult. Hogeboom added that zoning districts
help define where long-term higher density can be located versus long-term lower
density.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Mark Schulte, 6336 Phoenix Street, stated he would like to know how this proposed
rezoning impacts his neighborhood and his property value. He said there are a lot of
neighbors who are concerned about how close they will be to high density housing and
how property values will be affected.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Kluchka asked which properties have been acquired for the Douglas Drive Corridor
Project. Hogeboom said there will be some properties acquired north of Golden Valley
Road.
Kisch referred to the Metropolitan Council's demographics regarding the rise in population
and asked if this proposed rezoning with help the City plan for higher density especially
since the corner of Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue is no longer being proposed for
higher density. Hogeboom said the Metropolitan Council gives estimates based on
regional levels and each City has to plan long-term for the increased population.
Grimes stated that he feels a well-maintained and landscaped higher density
development would fit in well in this area. McCarty asked why it is being limited to such
low density. Hogeboom stated that a developer could petition the City in the future to
rezone it to a higher density zoning category.
Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed rezoning to R-3 residential, but he would
not support a 60-foot high, vinyl sided building like what was proposed previously for this
area.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 5
Kluchka asked what uses would be considered Conditional Uses are in the R-3 Zoning
District. Grimes read the following list of Conditional Uses found in the R-3 Zoning District
in the City Code: Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons, Group Foster Homes,
Senior and physical disability housing to a density in excess of 12 units per acre or up to
5 stories or 60 feet in height and retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and
professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when
located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales establishment or office
shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of rezoning the properties located at 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300
Douglas Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3)
Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use
Plan Map.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
The Commission discussed possible dates for the annual holiday party. The consensus
was to have the party on December 7 at the Brookview GriIL
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.
�v�!/ � �
David A. Cera, Secretary