Loading...
01-23-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 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, January 23, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Bryanna Vidden and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Kluchka was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes November 14, 2011 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 14, 2011 as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment— Final Plan — 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 reminded the Commission that they reviewed the Preliminary Plan for this proposed PUD Amendment at their November 14, 2011meeting. He referred to the site plan and noted that the applicant has added the striped walkway in the parking lot as requested by the Planning Commission and that they've also submitted a landscape plan per the City CounciPs request. Segelbaum asked if staff has looked at the maintenance of the private roadway as was discussed at the November 14 Planning Commission meeting. Hogeboom said the road was inspected and that there were some potholes, but no major maintenance concerns. Segelbaum asked if staff wrote a review of the landscape plan recently submitted. Hogeboom said staff did review the plan but did not write a staff report. Ken Nordby, NAI Architects, showed the Commission pictures of the existing building and pictures of how the building will look with the addition of the car wash, expanded entry way and glass feature wall. Waldhauser referred to the west side of the building and asked if there has been any thought given to installing deep-rooted plants to help with water run-off issues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 2 Jeff Lupient, Applicant, stated that five or six evergreen trees were planted on the west side a couple of years ago to help with the water issues. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, asked if the rain spouts on the building are directed toward the green space. Lupient explained that most of the water goes to the west toward the green space. He stated that they also put in a curb along the west side of the property and there is a culvert that runs into a rock basin and then into the street. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kisch stated he feels the applicant has incorporated everything that was asked of them. The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Schmidgall 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 by NAI Architects and include the following: existing and demolition site plan, proposed site plan, existing floor plans, orientation plans, floor plan — building A, floor plan — building B, exterior elevations and landscape plan. 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. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment— Preliminary Plan — 123 Ottowa Ave. N., Breck School — PU-88 Amendment#1 Applicant: Breck School Address: 123 Ottawa Avenue North Purpose: To allow a portion of the existing two-story building (the upper school) to be demolished and replaced with a new four-story building. Vidden gave a brief history of the site and explained the applicant's proposal to demolish and rebuild their upper school building. The proposed new building will include a renovated media center, consolidation of administrative services, additional small-group Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 3 meeting space and updated mechanical and electrical systems. She stated that horizontal expansion of the buildings is limited by wetlands, floodplain and the existing athletic fields. She added that there is no planned increase in enrollment and this is the first phase of a larger project. She showed the Commission a rendering of the proposed new building and noted that the new building will be 70 feet in height compared to the existing chapel bell tower which is 96 feet in height. Segelbaum asked if staff believes Breck manages traffic satisfactorily. Vidden stated that the amount of traffic should not change as a result of the proposed construction because Breck's enrollment is expected to stay the same. Hogeboom added that the Public Safety Department works with Breck regarding traffic management and the construction traffic will be managed during the building permit process. Segelbaum asked if staff requested the proposed green roof. Vidden stated that the City did not request the green roof, Breck proposed it. Hogeboom added that because Breck is not proposing to expand the footprint of the building by more than 10% they will not be required to go to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission for review. Wendy Engelman, Business Manager, Breck School, said they are very excited about this project. The proposed changes will better fit their curriculum and they will work with the City to address any traffic and safety concerns. Waldhauser referred to an email sent by a neighbor concerned about the hours of construction. She asked if that issue will be addressed during the building permit process. Hogeboom said the hours of construction can be addressed during the building permit process and the City will work with Breck at that time, however, the City's noise ordinance typically allows noise from 7 am to 10 pm. Cera asked about the next phase of the project. Engelman stated that future plans call for a similar addition to the west for the middle school. Kisch asked if there is any way to shrink the floor to ceiling space so that the building is not so talL Dick Strassburg, Owner's Representative, explained that they have been working with their architects regarding the height of the building because they have the same concerns. He explained that the future phases will be kept at the same height and the buildings will "step back" so as not to feel overwhelming. Engelman agreed that the height of the building is a concern and noted that the chapel is the main focal point of the school. Kisch asked about the type of construction being proposed. Strassburg stated it will be steel construction. He explained that the classrooms will have 10-foot high ceilings with an additional 2 feet for mechanicals. McCarty questioned the need to double the space if the enrollment is not expected to increase. Engelman reiterated that the proposed addition will have small group meeting Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 4 and tutorial space, seminar rooms and media space as well as additional classroom and lab space. Schmidgall questioned if it is within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to question Breck's design and program issues. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Barbara Busick, 4736 Glenwood Ave, said she assumes construction will start in the summer and asked how long construction will last and if there would be construction on weekends. Hogeboom said construction would probably start in June. Busick asked if there is a process to inform the neighborhood about the time construction will occur. Hogeboom said there is no process however staff will be working with the applicant on construction hours and traffic issues. Busick asked if it would help to call the City with her concerns before building permits are issued. Waldhauser suggested Busick email or write her concerns to Hogeboom. Waldhauser also noted that there will be three more public hearings with opportunities for neighbors to express their concerns. Busick suggested that Breck use multiple streets for their construction traffic in order to spread it out. Douglas Weiss, 400 Natchez Avenue North, said he is concerned about the building height and his view being changed. He said he would like to see drawings of how the building will look and that he would rather see a three-story building instead of a four-story building. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, asked if Breck will be required to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and who would review the plans. Cera noted that the City Engineer will require Breck to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and obtain a Stormwater Management Permit. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is concerned about the height of the building. He said he thinks the proposed height would be more appropriate if their enrollment was increasing. Kisch agreed that the proposed height is a concern, but he doesn't share McCarty's concerns about enrollment. He commended the design and said it is a great project to move forward on, but he would like Breck to push their architect to reduce the height. He said he would also like to see more articulation on the east and west sides of the building. Segelbaum said he supports the proposal and is pleased to see Breck investing in the community. He added that he is concerned that traffic may increase with the amount of added space. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 5 Cera said he doesn't believe that the construction traffic will be anywhere near the current morning and afternoon traffic. He said he is in favor of the proposal and he likes the green roof and that the footprint of the building is not expanding. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Preliminary Plan for PUD 88, Amendment#1, Breck School subject to the following conditions 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared by Holabird & Root and include the following: G1-3 site plan, G1- 9 green roof& ground coverage diagrams, G1-10 overall 100, 150 & 200 level floor plans, A2-1 foundation floor plan, A2-2 100 & 150 level floor plan, A2-3 200 level floor plan, A2-4 300 level floor plan, A2-5 400 level floor plan, A2-6 500 level roof plan, penthouse plan & 600 level penthouse roof plan, A2-7 150 north classroom renovation floor plan, A4-1 and A4-2 building elevations, A4-5 building sections, new upper school elevations and diagram comparing height of existing chapel bell tower and proposed new building. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated January 10, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated January 13, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing -Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending Section 11.70 "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" —ZO00-89 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the amount of parking required for certain uses. Vidden stated that she studied the City's parking requirements in response to a request by the Planning Commission to determine if Golden Valley requires too much parking. She discussed her study which included comparisons with other cities and explained that staff is recommending to amend the parking regulations to require fewer parking spaces in nine of the use categories. Waldhauser asked for examples of which properties would be impacted by the proposed amendments. Vidden stated that her study showed that Golden Valley is on par with other similar cities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 6 Waldhauser referred to the parking requirements at ball fields. She stated that ball fields are heavily used and there may be complaints about there not being enough parking spaces. Kisch agreed and said currently the City tends to approach parking as requiring a minimum amount rather than a maximum amount. He referred to Walgreen's recent variance request for fewer parking spaces than required because they didn't feel they needed as many as the City Code required them to have. He said he likes parking language that puts more emphasis on a use and puts a cap on the number of spaces allowed rather than a minimum. Segelbaum asked if comments or complaints regarding parking could be examined. Hogeboom stated that comments or complaints are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that there isn't a data base kept on file. Cera referred to the requirements for ball fields which states that 1 space is required per 6 seats. He questioned how "seats" are considered when there are no benches or bleachers. He also questioned the requirements regarding gas stations and if a service stall or a space at the gas pump is counted in the parking totals. He questioned if the numbers proposed for gas stations were inadvertently raised instead of lowered. He suggested ball fields and gas stations be looked at again. Hogeboom said he would talk to fhe Park and Recreation Department about the parking at ball fields in order to get a better idea of how many spaces to require. McCarty referred to the "adequate plan" language and asked how that is defined because it seems ambiguous. Schmidgall said he thinks this draft was a nice effort and is moving in the right direction. He added that the City almost always reduces the amount of parking required for developments when asked to do so. He said he would be inclined to recommend approval of these proposed changes and take another look at it in the future if needed. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, referred to Meadowbrook School and stated that it is unique because it is also a community center. She questioned the number of parking spaces required for those two uses. She added that parking is a really big problem at Meadowbrook and there aren't nearly enough parking spaces. Hogeboom explained that the regular parking requirements in the Zoning Code don't apply at Meadowbrook because it is a PUD. Therefore, the PUD Permit would dictate the parking requirements. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she would like to have staff provide some examples of properties where adjustments could be made and examples of properties where there aren't enough Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 23, 2012 Page 7 parking spaces or where there are too many parking spaces. Hogeboom said that staff will assign specific businesses to Planning Commissioners to review over the next several weeks. Commissioners will be asked to look at whether or not there is adequate parking onsite, whether or not snow is stored in the parking Iot and if parking lot usage increases or decreases at different times of the week. Staff will revisit parking regulations with the Planning Commission at a later meeting to see whether or not the Commission recommends making additional changes MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to table the discussion regarding amending the Zoning Code Section 11.70 "Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations" 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser reported on the Bottineau Transitway open house she attended on January 23 and reminded the Commission that there will be a joint meeting with the City Council, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission on January 30. 6. Other Business Waldhauser stated that she attended Planning Commissioner training and she would like to share the MnAPA Citizen Planner Handbook with the rest of the Commission at a future Planning Commission meeting. The Commission agreed that meeting on a scheduled meeting night would work best. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. , David A. Cera, Secretary