Loading...
03-23-98 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, March 23, 1998 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - February 23 and March 9, 1998 II. Election of Officers III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals IV. Land Use Plan - Presentation by Subcommittee V. Adjournment .. . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 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, February 23, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - February 9. 1998 Chair Pentel noted one spelling error found on the last line of page 8. The word "portable" should be changed to "affordable". . MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 1998 minutes as submitted with the correction of the one word found on page 8. II. Informal Public HearinQ . Conditional Use Permit No. 72 Applicant: Bright Start Children's Centers Address: 1710 Douglas Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Subject: To allow for the operation of a day care in a portion of the building. City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed the staff report prepared by Director Mark Grimes. Knoblauch told the commission and audience that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) in order to operate a day care center in the Business and Professional Office zoning district. . Knoblauch explained that the day care operation would use approximately 7,000 sq.ft. of the building; it would serve 131 children (20 being infants); there would be 15-20 employees on site; and operating hours would be from 6:30am to 6pm. She said there are six parking spaces to the south of the entrance for drop off, and employees can park elsewhere on the site to avoid using spaces close to the entrance of the day care. Knoblauch continued her review by saying that the plans for the center would be reviewed by the State also. The Inspections Department has completed a preliminary review of the site. Other than a sign for the day care, there ? Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 2 would be no significant change to the site. The space to the east of the building, where a volleyball court exists, would be turned into a divided play ground area. Bright Start said they would try to maintain as much landscaping as possible. The playground area would be enclosed by a six foot fence made of a wood material on the sides and rear, with a chain link fence around 1/3rd of the sides and on the front. . Knoblauch reviewed the 10 "Factors for Consideration" as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need. Bright Start has identified a market for this use. 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The Compo Plan Map identifies the site, including the play area as Business and Professional Office. The day care is in conformity with the plan. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area. The most significant change would be the play area. With fencing and limited hours, staff does not believe there would be an impact on property values. 4. Impact of Traffic Generation. The day care would generate approximately 420 trips per day; 120 trips would be between 7 -8am. The street system is capable of handling this amount of additional traffic. 5. Impact of Population or Density Increases. There will be no increase population except during the hours of operation of the day care. 6. Increase in Noise Levels. The vehicle traffic should not cause a noise problem. Children will be in the playground; children will make noise, but the 6' fence . should help mitigate this noise. 7. Odors. Dust. Smoke. Gas. or Vibration. There will be no increase in pollutants because of this day care. 8. Flies. Rats, Other Animals or Vermin. Staff does not expect any of these creatures to be attracted by a day care. 9. Visual Appearance. The appearance of the building will remain the same except for the permitted signage. The playground and open space will be screened and landscaped. 10. Other Impacts. No other impacts were identified. Knoblauch told the commission that staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. with the following conditions: 1. The site and building plans submitted by Bright Start, prepared by Gary Bressler Architect, and dated 2/5/98 become a part of this permit. 2. A landscape plan for the open spacelplayground area shall be submitted as part of the permit. This plan should include details about the types of new material to be planted and identification of which existing materials will be kept. The City Forester shall review the landscape plan. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 3 . 3. No more than 30 children shall be in the playground/open space area at one time. (This item was corrected at the meeting. The representative for Bright Start, Terri Taylor, told the commission that there are two areas to the playground and there could possibly be up to 50 children on the playground at one time.) 4. The hours of operation shall be 6am to 6pm, Monday through Friday. (This item was corrected at the meeting. The hours of operation would be 6:30am to 6pm.) 5. The day care center shall be limited to 131 children. 6. The State of Minnesota shall approve all plans for the day care center. 7. The City Inspection Department shall approve all plans for construction. 8. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the C.U.P. . Commissioner Martens questioned whether these conditions were set in stone and could more be added. Knoblauch said yes, other points can be looked at. Martens said that safety would be a good point to look at. Knoblauch commented that the State probably has very stringent rules and regulations which the day care must adhere to. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the playground area had setbacks. Knoblauch answered there are setbacks for parking lots but not for playgrounds. She said the fence may need a permit depending on its height, but there are no setback regulations for fences that will border the playground. Commissioner Groger noted that the house to the east is approximately 50 to 60 feet from the playground area. Groger commented on the parking requirements saying that the property barely meets the current zoning of the property. He asked staff if there was a different parking requirement for a day care use vs. office, and if so which requirement is the commission suppose to be looking at. Knoblauch noted that with a day care use there would be a surplus of parking. . Terri Taylor, Regional Director for Bright Start, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, reviewed the site play pointing out the playground area. She said the playground has two areas, the right side could hold 30 children and the left side 15-20 children. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 4 Taylor told the commission that the children would use the playground area in the morning and afternoon, somewhere between 3 to 5:30pm. She said the older children, during the summer months would be on field trips some days. Taylor noted that the children would have lunch and then nap. . Commissioner Kapsner asked if in some of their other locations the hours of operation were different; Taylor said no. Kapsner asked if the school age children would be dropped off by bus. Taylor explained which Robbinsdale District school would be associated with the center. She said that the school age children would be at the center for a short time in the am and pm. They would have their own room where they would have a snack, do projects or homework and get out side for a little time. Taylor also said that during the winter months they may not have an opportunity to get outside because it gets dark early. Martens said he had safety questions concerning the playground being located across the driveway from the entrance. Taylor explained that there would be a crosswalk from the entrance of the building across the driveway. She said the children are escorted to the playground using a rope with hoops that each child must hang on to. . Groger asked about the height of the playground equipment. Taylor said that it would be age appropriate in height. Groger asked if there was a minimum or maximum size requirement for the playground. Taylor commented that the requirement for the playground is 75 feet per child and this space is a little bit more than what is required. Groger asked Taylor what the teacher to child ratio for the day care. Taylor recited the figures to the commission for each age group. Groger asked Taylor how many months of the year the playground would be in use. Taylor said it would be shoveled all year, and depending on the temperature the children could use the playground all year round. Pentel asked if there was a water source on playground; Taylor said she was unaware of any. Pentel asked if buses would use the driveway to the back of the building. Taylor said that she would prefer if buses did not come through the back, and still needed to talk with the transportation people about the route. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 5 . Pentel asked if the day care would use St. Croix Park. Taylor responded that they would like to use the park system and that it would be a fun field trip for the pre- school and school-aged children. Commissioner McAleese asked Taylor to review, on the site plan, where the fencing is located relative to the lot lines. Taylor reviewed the site plan noting the privacy fence on the east side which wraps around on the south and north sides and that a chain link fence is located to the front. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Phyllis Perkins, 1431 W. Constance Drive, said she was concerned about 1) the playground being located 50 feet from her house and the noise that will come from the children on the playground; 2) the headlights from the cars early in the morning that would shine directly into her bedroom; and 3) believes the enjoyment and quality of her life would be affected. Groger asked her if she knew when the proposed playground parcel was sold off. Perkins thought it was about 20 years ago when PACE Labs went in. . Michael Maccanelli, 6121 St. Croix Avenue, believes property values in the area would decrease and that traffic would use the back driveway runs directly past his house to get to the day care. He said he was not looking forward to having cars going back and forth all day long. Maccanelli said he understands the need for child care. He questioned how staff could make a recommendation without first talking with the residents affected by the proposal. He said he was unclear on what age group would use the playground and how the center is proposing to keep local children out of this area after hours. He said he bought at this location because the PACE building buffers the noise coming from Douglas Drive. Maccanelli said he works and lives at his house and is concerned with the traffic along the back parking area. Joe Strom, 1441 W. Constance Drive, said his property abuts the proposed playground and this use would have a negative affect on his property value as did PACE when it went in. He commented that his wife is home with their children and she and their retired neighbors would have to listen to children on th~ playground all day long. He believes the playground is not big enough for 50 children. Strom also believes the neighborhood children would use this playground after hours as a hangout. Strom also told the commission that he knew nothing about the meeting until he talked with Commissioner Groger the day before the meeting. . Pentel asked Strom how long he has lived on Constance; Strom said seven years. Commissioner Johnson asked if the volleyball court was there when he moved in; Strom said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 6 Strom said that if this proposal should go through he would like some kind of payback from the City for the amount of money he would lose on his property. . Gwen Wiebesick, 6145 St. Croix Avenue, talked about the growth of the PACE building going from a cracker box to the size it is now. She is worried about the number of cars that would use the back driveway all day long. She told the commission that people use to sit on the berm and eat lunch and she would clean up the mess left behind; she is afraid this would happen again. She said that she was thinking about selling and was told that something should be done about the dirt pile at northeast corner of the Golden Valley Corporate Center (formerly known as PACE). Dean Knudson, 2320 Brookridge Ave. No., said he was speaking on behalf of the parents in the Bright Start community. He said the organization was well run and a stable business employing 15-20 people. He believes this is a great training process for people entering into the child care field. Knudson said that Bright Start has done a good job on educating parents and the community on traffic and parking at the facility now located in Robbinsdale. He talked about the transition of neighborhoods going from elderly to young families and also noted the need for child care in the proposed area. Martins asked Knudson if he had any concerns about the playground being separated from the building. Knudson said no because staff would handle the. situation appropriately concerning the safety of the children. Sandra Braun, 1320 Florida Avenue No., said that she spent two months looking for day care, which has been next to impossible, and finally found Bright Start. She said she researched this day care before committing to it. She believes the limited amount of time the children would use the playground area would not have a negative impact on the residents in the area. Braun talked about staff doing a good job of supervising the children indoors and out. She told the commission that not everyone drops their children off at 6:30am and picks them up at 6pm. She said that she has visited Bright Start on three separate occasions and never found more than 4 cars delivering or picking up children. Joanne Strom, 1441 W. Constance Drive, is concerned about having 50 screaming children in her backyard and believes that her property would not be saleable with this playground abutting her property. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel asked Terri Taylor to come forward to answer questions. Pentel asked Taylor to state when the daycare would be closed. Taylor said the six major holidays, the day after Thanksgiving, and weekends. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 7 . Pentel asked if the playground is locked during the day. Taylor said the playground area would be locked on weekends and in the evenings but not during working hours. Pentel asked how high the chain link fence would be; Taylor said 5 feet. Pentel commented on general questions from the audience noting that the commission and staff cannot ascertain how and when trips would be made to the day care center, nor can they determine what would happen to property values in this area if the proposed day care went into the PACE location. City Planner Knoblauch said that she could talk with the Hennepin County Assessors to find out if they can some how determine what would happen with property valuations if this kind of facility opened in the area. Pentel asked Administrative Secretary Oold the process for mailings. Oold commented that notices were mailed out in time for residents to receive the notice 10 days before the meeting. She said she had just now talked with Mr. Strom about not receiving notice. He stated that his wife had the notice but never shared it with him. . Pentel told the audience that the proper time for staff to receive input concerning proposals are at the informal public hearing of the Planning Commission and the formal public hearing of the City Council. Pentel said that she would asked staff to investigate the number of vehicles parked on the northeast side of the parking lot. Knoblauch said that she was unaware of the dirt piles located on the east side of the parking lot and would talk with Inspections first thing on Tuesday morning. Pentel asked Taylor how long the lease would be for; Taylor said 10 years. McAleese asked Taylor to describe how the operation works at the day care center in Robbinsdale and how close are homes to the playground area. Taylor said that the playground is connected to the building and is fenced off and the nearest homes are across the street. Martens said his main concern is the location of the playground to the building. Taylor said that if she had a choice she would like to see them not separated. Martens asked how the children would be taken to the playground from the building. Taylor said the children are taken in groups in which they hold onto hoops on a rope and that there is a teacher in front and the rear to make sure there are no doddlers. Martens asked Taylor what stops children from leaving the playground area. Taylor commented that they are taught that they cannot leave the area without a teacher. . Groger asked if Bright Start had searched for other property and what kind of market search did they do. Taylor said they have been looking around for other property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 8 She said they had surveyed parents, mapped out where parents lived and worked to try to find an area that would meet the needs of the parents. . Johnson asked what areas they had looked at. Taylor said in New Hope in the area of Hwy. 169 and 36th. Johnson asked what kind of sites they were looking for. Taylor said free-standing. Martens commented on the area where the dock doors are located on the northeast side and asked if this could be considered warehouse space, then maybe not all the parking is needed and the playground could be placed elsewhere on the site closer to the building. Knoblauch commented that the area in question is not warehouse space, but was used for PACE vehicles. She said that when Director Grimes calculated the parking it was based on office use only because that is how the building is being leased. Knoblauch said that if the owners guaranteed that this space would never be used for office, maybe staff can look at this again. She said that she would discuss this with Director Grimes. Martens asked staff if the parking on this site was being utilized. The 'audience uttered that it is never full. Martens said that this would be a good thing for staff to look into. Kapsner commented that looking at the site plan, he does not see anywhere else the . playground could go. McAleese commented that parents would be coming from the north, south and east and could Taylor give some percentages on what routes parents would use. Taylor said that most of the parents would be coming from Robbinsdale but cannot say what travel route would be used. Chair Pentel reopened the informal public hearing, stating that she would only hear new information. Joanne Strom, 1441 W. Constance Drive, said that she would not even be able go into her house to get away from the noise of the children. She said she was not opposed to day cares but is to the playground. She questioned whether it made a difference being qt the meeting. Mike Maccanelli, 6121 St. Croix Ave. No., told the commission that the traffic on Douglas is very heavy and is concerned about people having to stop on Douglas to make the turn into the site. He said that if they use St. Croix they would then be running in front of his house and using the back driveway. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 9 . Joe Strom, 1441, W. Constance Drive, asked how many treeS would be removed, and if the cotton wood has to come down, a large piece of gr~enery would be removed from the site. . Maureen Lampert, Director of Bright Start, commented on drcbp off at the day care noting that not everyone comes at 6:30am, that maybe four families arrive by 6:45am, and 8 families by 7am. She said some children come later in the morning depending upon when the parent needs to be at work. Lampert said pa~ents come anywhere from 3-6pm to pick up their children. McAleese asked when staff personnel arrive. Lampert said two come at 6:30am, by 6:45 the cook comes in and by 7am two more staff come in and so on. Gwen Wiebesick, 6145 St. Croix Avenue, questioned how 10r[lg the building would be occupied by office personnel once the noise from the childrerj1 filter through the building. . Gary Bressler, Architect, 9800 Primrose Av. No., Stillwater, commented that he has worked for Bright Start since 1978. He talked about other facilities that have remote playground areas referring to one specific one that is 700 feat away from the main building and has never posed a problem. Bressler noted that in 50% of the municipalities, day cares are called a residential business and put next to residential areas. Johnson asked Bressler if parking could be displaced, could ~he playground be put elsewhere by removing asphalt. Bressler said yes, but the business owner may not appreciate this because office space would have to be eliminated in order to meet parking requirements. Martens questioned whether this coulp not be a possibility and asked the applicant and staff to review this. Knoblauch Said this could be restrictive because of fire lane issues and movement througH the site. Pentel commented that the commission should not get involved in redoing the site plan and should start deliberations. Martens said that if BreSsler says it is impossible to do, the commission will need to go with that statement. Br~ssler added that the only other place the play ground could go would be at the north end of the site and that would be approximately 600 feet from the entrance. . Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Groger said that he could not support the proposal. He said lit was very unusual and a very unfortunate situation that the proposed playground parcel was sold off. Groger said that he would like to see Bright Start come to Golden Valley because there is a real need for day care in the city. He said if this proposal should be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 10 approved, he encourages the applicants to look at alternatives on the property and to look at the option of placing a privacy fence along the rear property line. . Martens agreed with Groger's comments noting the safety issue with the playground. He believes the neighbors are being impacted and they have the right to have their views heard which is taking place now. Martens said the propose use was appropriate for the site and believed the traffic concern would be worked out He encouraged the applicant to look at a reduced playground somewhere else on the site. Prazak agreed with Groger and Martens. He said he was concerned about the distance between the house and playground. Johnson also agreed with the other commissioners. She stated that there must be another way to locate the playground on this property and would not impact the neighbors has badly. She said she would be voted against the proposal. McAleese said he too was voting against the proposal. He said commenting on procedural matters, with the majority of the commission voting against the proposal and not knowing how this item will go forward, he noted staff recommendations, item no. 2 concerning the City Foresters comments and would like to have the added . language at the end of the sentence of "and approve the landscape plan". He suggested as part of NO.3 that the playground area be locked during the hours of non-operation. He agrees that a privacy fence should be constructed along the entire rear of the property. McAleese reviewed his comments relative to the "Factors of Consideration" as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need. People have appeared before the commission demonstrating that there is a need for day care in Golden Valley. 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. He said that he was not convinced that this is a consistent and appropriate use in this area. He said when the commission previously amended the zoning code it was to allow ancillary usage that would provide day care service for business and professional office area. It was a day care island within the use and here is a primary use and different that what we intended with the amendment and maybe the amendment needs to be revisited. 3. Effect on Property Values. The commission cannot determine this factor but believes the presence of children and the playground will make the affected houses much more difficult to sell. 4. Impact of Traffic Generation. The traffic really concerns him in that this will create 120 additional trips during the peak driving period. Douglas and Duluth is . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 11 an extremely busy intersection. He suspects people will use the back route along St. Croix and coming in the back driveway. 5. Impact of Population or Densitv Increases. Agrees with staff that there would be no increase. .' 6. Increase in Noise Level. Believes it will be a large problem. 7. Odors, Dust. Smoke. Gas. or Vibration. Agrees with staff that there would be no effect. 8. Flies, Rats, Other Animals or Vermin. Agrees with staff that there would be no effect. 9. Visual Appearance. Believes that with the addition of a privacy fence views would be affected as would be the case if the trees were removed. 10. Other Impacts. Believes there would be an impact. McAleese said that if this proposal does go forward he would like to see something done about the playground area concerning the safety of the children crossing the driveway. Kapsner commented that the traffic situation does not bother him and that this is a professional company who would deal with the safety issue. He commented, as did McAleese, that the commission had a hand in making this proposal come forward in that the addition that the day care is proposing to be housed in was approved by the commission and believes the site is stretched to its limits. Kapsner said that he cannot go along with the location of the play area and if it were located away from the houses, he could then support the proposal. Pentel also stated that she could not support the request for a C.U.P. She also believes that he staff will make sure that the children would to and from the play area safely. She believes the fencing around the playground, which would be easy to get into after hours would become a potential problem with children hanging out. Pentel asked how staff would like the commission to proceed regarding the motion. Knoblauch commented that the conditions would be dealt with in the case that the City Council would approve the request. Pentel said that she concurs with the comments from McAleese regarding his findings on the 10 "Factors for Consideration" noting the noise factor. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 12 MOVED by Groger to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a day care operation on a portion of the property located at 1710 Douglas Drive; however, if the City Council should approve the C.U.P. the commission would recommend staff's recommendations with some amendments as follows: . 1. The site and building plans submitted by Bright Start, prepared by Gary Bressler Architect, and dated 2/5/98 become a part of this permit. 2. A landscape plan for the open space/playground area shall be submitted as part of the C.U.P. Permit. This plan should include details about the types of new material to be planted and identified of which existing materials will be kept. The City Forester shall review and approve the landscape plan. 3. No more than 30 children shall be in the playground/open space area at one time. (The commission agreed that if the Council wishes, they can raise the number to the requested amount per the applicant.) The playground/open space area will be locked during non-operational hours. 4. The hours of operation shall be 6:30am to 6pm, Monday through Friday. 5. The day care center shall be limited to 131 children. . 6. The State of Minnesota shall approve all plans for the day care center. 7. The City Inspection Department shall approve all plans for construction. 8. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the C.U.P. 10.A privacy fence be added along the entire length of the rear property line due to the number of possible trips along the back driveway. The motion was seconded by Johnson and the vote was unanimous to recommend to the City Council denial of the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Bright Start Children's Center. III. Informal Public Hearina - Capital Improvement Proaram (CIP) Don Taylor, Finance Director and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works were present to answer questions from the commission regarding the CIP. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 1998 Page 13 . The comlnission reviewed information handed out at the meeting. The commission proceeded to review some of the projects listed in the CIP. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motioned carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the submitted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). VI. Reports on Meetinas of the Housinq and Redevleopment Authoritv. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals No reports were given. VII. Other Business A. Land Use Plan - Presentation by Subcommittee This item was tabled to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission due to the lateness of the hour. . B. Philosophy of Sidewalks in Golden Valley It was suggested by one of the commissioners that the topic of the philosophy of sidewalks. in Golden Valley be placed on a Planning Commission agenda. VI. Adiournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10pm. Emily Johnson, Secretary . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 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, March 9, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. ~1I-U Those present were Chair Pentel a~~sioners Johnson, Kapsner, Martem, McAleese and Prazak; absent was r. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Minutes of February 23. 1998 Not available. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.2) to the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 71 Applicant: Valley Creek, LLC . Address: 8301, 8401, and 8501 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Amend Preliminary Design Plan - P.U.D. No. 71 - To allow for the existing one lot to be divided into three lots with each building situated on its own lot; and to allow for additional square footage of signage, up and beyond what is permitted in the sign code, for each of the three buildings. . Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of the request to amend P.U.D. No. 71 which is located in Area A 1, Valley Square Redevelopment Area. He said the three buildings are now under construction. Grimes said the first part of the amendment request is to create three lots instead of the existing one lot. This will allow each building to be situated on its own lot. He said that staff may want to talk to the owner about adjusting the property lines so each lot would be conforming. Grimes said the second request to allow for more signage on the building than what is permitted. The owner originally said that signage would meet the sign code requirements but as the developer located tenants the need for signage increased. Grimes said that there would be no monument signage, only directional signage at egress/ingress points. He said there would be small signs above each entrance and there would illuminated signage around the top of each of the buildings. Grimes noted that the permitted signage for the buildings would be 150 sq.ft., the owner is requesting 250 sq.ft.; 90 feet more than what is required. Grimes said that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 2 Inspections Department has contacted other cities regarding its sign code and found that some cities have more sign regulations and some cities have less. Grimes indicated to the commission that the proposed signage is the look of the future; businesses are leasing buildings and having the signage on the building. . Chair Pentel asked if the requested 240 sq.ft. of signage includes the small signage over the door; Grimes said yes. Commissioner Groger recited the request for signage again and said he assumed there would be no monument sign; Grimes said he was correct. Chair Pentel asked about signs at all entrances to the site. Grimes said the entrance signs would indicate the address of the building or be directional signage. Commissioner Kapsner asked how the square footage of the signs are determined. Grimes said the Inspections Department measures the square footage of the sign by going around it; technically it can be difficult to calculate. Commissioner Johnson asked if the signs on each of the buildings would be uniform, in that the lettering and lighting would be the same. Grimes said the lighting of the signs would be the same but is unsure about the type of lettering to be used. Grimes told the commission the City would require additional cross easements subject to the lot change and that documents would need to be submitted to the City and its attorney for review before General Plan review. Grimes also told the commission that there is a small discrepancy between the total actual building size and what was approved and it would be appropriate for the commission to review this now. . Commissioner Groger asked Grimes if he was suggesting that the commission approve the revised square footage at this time. He noted that with the increase in building size, two additional parking spaces would be required. Grimes noted that the buildings are being constructed at this time, so the commission could ask the owner to create two more parking spaces by reducing the size of some islands or to leave it the way it is. Grimes indicated that parking spaces are now over the required amount because of the clinic. He said the developer planned more parking to begin with to have a cushion or comfort level. Pentel asked if e.ach of the lots, as they are being platted have enough parking. Grimes reviewed the site plan regarding parking noting that there would be a cross parking agreement. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 3 . Pentel asked if there would be only one tenant in each building and their name would be on the building. Grimes said there would be more than one tenant in a building and asked Pentel to address this question to the applicant. Johnson asked if the smaller tenants would not have signage. Grimes said if they are a large enough tenant, they would have signage on the building. Grimes told the commission that overall the City is pleased with the development of the site and noted that the owner would like to have North Memorial in its building by Spring of this year. Representative Frank Dunbar, 5000 Glenwood Avenue, asked the commission if they had questions. Pentel asked about signage on the building. Dunbar said it would be uniform, there would be one color of back lighting. He said they may allow some variation in print type. Dunbar also noted that tenants for the buildings are taking full floors. . Groger asked about street addressing and if there were a smaller tenant and if someone was coming to the site would it be confusing to locate that small tenant. Dunbar responded those coming to the building more than likely would be the employees of these tenants. He said that the addresses were changed from Olson Memorial Highway to Golden Valley Road which was more appealing and that the addresses for the buildings would be on entrance signs into the site. Groger asked if it was necessary to duplicate signage on the top of the building and over the front entrance. Dunbar said that it was important to the tenant to have its name at both places. He said that they did not want alot of signage on the top of the buildings facing Golden Valley Road so they went with the smaller signage above the entrance to the buildings. Groger asked if this signage above the doors would be lit; Dunbar said no. Groger asked who would own each building. Dunbar explained that for financing flexibility it would be easier to have each building on its own lot. He said that he had one tenant requesting the right to first refusal to buy the building down the road. Johnson asked about adjusting the lot lines and working on cross easement agreements. Dunbar replied that he would work with staff on these issues. Kapsner asked about the cross easement agreement and if it was normal that when there were buildings owned separately, there would only be one management company handing the snow plowing. Dunbar said that it would be reasonable that there would be one company doing it, and if there wasn't, then each lot would be plowed according to its lot lines. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 4 Grimes asked about parking lot repair. Dunbar said that the maintenance of the parking lots would be according to lot lines, which would be defined in the cross easement agreement. . Pentel asked if this was staff's recommendation. Grimes said that the City has usually worked with homeowners associations and cross easement agreements where everyone is putting in funds to handle repairs. He said this proposal is a little different and staff and the City Attorney would need to review the agreement. Commissioner McAleese noted that the parking lot would not work if the entire lot is not cleared. He said the whole idea of the development was a campus setting and is not sure this development would have been approved if it would have been presented the first time around with three separate lots. Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Groger commented that he is troubled by the proposal in that he agreed with McAleese about not getting approved if the initial presentation for the development was for three' lots. He said he was troubled by the maintenance agreement and without something in front of the commission is unsure what is being agreed upon. . Groger commented that he sees no benefit to the City with separate lots and this may cause problems down the road with different ownership. He doesn't find the financial aspect important enough to override the original approval. Groger also said he was troubled by too much signage and may give the buildings a cluttered look. Johnson said that she doesn't see a problem with the division of the lots but the lines should conform more to code requirements. She believes there is a uniformity with the layout of the buildings and proposed signage. Johnson said it is more important that cross easement agreements are laid out so it is clear to the owner and future owners what is required of them. Kapsner said that he agreed with Johnson. He said that the proposed signage for the buildings is the way of the future and is happening now, and believes it is an important selling point. Kapsner believes that staff can adequately guard against difficulties concerning the separate lots through the cross easement agreements. Commissioner Prazak asked if other PUD's have been split up. Grimes said Area C has four separate lots, one for each of the restaurants, the main building and the post office building. He said that there is a cross easement agreement for the site and when the documents were reviewed there was specific language concerning a parking agreement. Grimes said the grass and vegetation is maintained all the same way for that campus look. Grimes said the commission could recommend that the grounds be maintained to adhere to a "campus" look. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 5 . McAleese commented on a recent amendment to the PUD ordinance which states that one party could go forward without the consent of the other owners. Grimes said that could be the case if the PUD Permit were written that way. He said the Valley Creek PUD Permit is not and all owners must agree to any amendments to the PUD. . . McAleese asked if there needs to be language concerning any changes to any of the sites, it must be approved by all owners and should this be included in the cross easement agreement. Grimes said this would be a reasonable request. Prazak referred that this should be added as a condition. McAleese commented on the technical point of this application qualifying as a PUD noting that it does qualify because it already exists as a PUD. He continued by saying that on the issue of the material that is to be presented as part of the package, he noted that he has heard complaints over the past year that staff has made arbitrary decisions and wants to defend City staff in this case because the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that the necessary information is available to make a decision. McAleese said that although the materials the commission received did not contain all the materials required, these materials are in the City files and can be reviewed. McAleese said he is comfortable with each lot having separate ownership as long as there is a cross easement agreement and uniformity among the buildings. He said that signage is a bigger issue and understands the need. He said Kapsner may be right about where lighting for buildings is going but is not sure about this site, and if this is approved, then there would be a precedent for others wanting this kind of lighting on their buildings. McAleese said in this case he would be willing to support what is being proposed as long as staff reviews and approves the lighting effects. McAleese said that he would like to see language suggesting that staff review the lighting plan. Grimes said this could be suggested to the Board of Building Review to give special review to the signage of the buildings. Pentel commented that she was happy to see development on Area A-1. She said she was glad to see there would not be a pylon sign and that the names on the buildings, facing Golden Valley Road, would not be lit. She agreed with others that if this would have been three lots when the original PUD came before the commission, she would not have recommended approval. She said she does not have a problem with three lots on the site. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one commissioner absent) to recommend approval of an amendment to the Valley Creek P.U.D., with the following conditions. 1. The applicant should be required to supply more precise site plans as this proposal moves forward. Those plans should be accurately scaled and should Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 6 reflect actual sizes and locations of all three buildings as well as any other site improvements that are already in place, but in all other respects should be identical with the currently approved site plans unless the developer specifically requests further revision of the PUD Permit. The property lines may be changed as per the requirements of the City's Inspections Department. . 2. The applicant should be required to prepare agreements covering cross-access, cross-parking, and joint maintenance/replacement of on-site improvements. All agreements, in draft form, should be available at the time of General Plan application for review and comment by the City Attorney; the cost of that review should be paid by the applicant. The cross parking agreement should contain strong language indicating that if one owner requests a change to the PUD, all owners must agree to the change. There also should be language which states that the three lots will maintain a "campus" look through vegetation, plantings, signage, etc. 3. The final plat should meet city staff requirements for plat name and for easements, as well as any requirements forwarded by MnDOT. 4. The development should be allowed to have up to 240 square feet of business identification signage instead of the 150 square feet permitted per City Code, but should be required to comply with all other on-site signage requirements. . 5. The amended PUD Permit should state the revised square footage of the buildings as given to Planning staff by the Inspections staff as follows: Three office buildings, each three stories in height with a total of 132,396 sq.ft. of floor area. (East and west buildings each have 41,332 sq.ft. and the south building has 49,732 sq.ft.) III. Informal Public Hearina -- Amendment No.2 to P.U.D. No. 42 Applicant: C. S. McCrossan Address: 812 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, MN Request: The amendment would allow for the consolidation of two of the three lots. A two-story office building, with a lower level, totalling approximately 48,000 sq.ft. would be constructed on the consolidated lots. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, gave a summary of his report to the commission. He old them that this was the former holiday hotel and restaurant . site, and when McCrossan bought the site many years ago he demolished most of the hotel and restaurant leaving the single story units of the hotel located at the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 7 . back of the site. Grimes said today only on building has survived which is located on Lot 3 which is a single tenant office building. Grimes told the commission that there would be a MnDOT taking of a small portion of the front of Lot 1. He said it was believed at one time that MnDOT would take the training center, to the south, but it has been decided not to take this property. Grimes said the new frontage road would be aligned between the proposal and training center building, running south to the rear of the training center and in front of Lot 3. He said that along with the highway reconstruction there would also be storm water improvements and MnDOT is proposing to buyout the single family resident to the north and use this lot and the empty lot to the north storm water ponding. Grimes reviewed the site plan noting a number of issues. He said the underlying zoning of the PUD is commercial which is consistent with the original PUD plans. Grimes told the commission that a few years ago the HRA entertained the idea of rezoning this property to industrial, but decided not to because of the single-family residence to the north. . Grimes talked about a calculation discrepancy regarding parking. He told the commission how the applicant calculated interior floor space and how the City defines interior floor space, which includes hallways and conference rooms, which determines the number of spaces for parking. He said the applicant believes they have enough parking and staff has determined there is a deficiency, and therefore, a variance for parking would be needed. Grimes reviewed the dedicated Hennepin County trail on outlot B which has never been met explaining that in 1985, it was decided the dedication requirement for the trail could happen after platting of the property. Grimes said unfortunately this "slipped through the cracks" and was never done. He said the applicant is aware of the dedication and would be part of this PUD. Pentel said she was unsure where the trail was going because of the wetland to the east of the proposal. Grimes talked about the trail being along the alignment of the new frontage road but would like to see the easement in place just in case Hennepin Parks changes its mind about the placement of the trail. He said the trail would extend to the south due to the steep sloping on the north side of the proposed property and because Hennepin Parks have had difficulty in getting an easement from the apartment property owner to the east. Pentel asked if MnDOT was confident where they would be placing the frontage road; Grimes said yes. Grimes suggested that there be a five or six foot sidewalk on the north side of the frontage road. . Grimes next talked about the cross-parking agreement. He pointed out that in general there are approximately 35 parking spaces being used on Lot 3. He said he Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 8 came to this conclusion by driving through the sight several times to observe the parking situation. . Pentel and Groger both commented on lack of parking when General Motors has training sessions noting that cars are parked in the street. Grimes commented that the applicant should not have to be burdened by the parking problem General Motors may create. Pentel pointed out that the applicant is asking for a variance for parking. Grimes commented if the taking by MnDOT does create parking problems for the General Motors site, MnDOT will then have to re-evaluate whether the General Motors site is inefficient for the area. MnDOT has commented that there is not a problem at this time with the General Motors building. Groger asked about parking on the proposed site stating that he sees only 112 parking spaces with 4 proof of parking. Grimes said that the applicant could review with the commission where the 8 proof of parking spaces would be located per the site plan. Groger said it seems odd that this is a PUD and part of the PUD is being excluded, and parking on Lot 3 is tight and will become tighter if the stairwells and walkways need to be enclosed. Grimes said Lot 3 is a separate lot as noted in the PUD Permit and can be addressed separately. He said the problem is that there are a number of non-conformities on the lot with setbacks and lack of parking and didn't . know how including it in the proposal would solve any of its problems. Greger said considering it is all under one ownership it is a relevant issue when Lot 3 and the proposed development both have parking and setback issues. Pentel asked if both parking lots (Lots 1 and 2 and Lot 3) could be tied together. Grimes said the applicant's idea was to keep them separate. He said parking can be discussed by this body, but noted, that historically there has not been a parking problem. Grimes told the commission that the configurations of the proposal and Lot 3 are very odd and the proposed lot would need variances because of its shape. He said the ideal situation would have been to develop the entire area at one time. McAleese asked staff if MnDOT wasn't doing a "taking", how many variances would be required for this site. Grimes said he was not sure it would meet setbacks along the front and to the north. The parking lot could probably be expanded more to the southwest if there were no "taking". Pentel asked the timeline for the highway construction and the proposed building construction. Grimes said MnDOT is starting construction in the area of Hwy. 55/100 in 1999 and the proposed building would be under construction this summer. Pentel briefly talked about the new light on Hwy. 55 and the limited amount of time . available for cars to make it through the light. She has concerns about the traffic generated by people using residential streets to by-pass Hwy: 55 and 100 when Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 9 . they backup. Grimes said this concern should be addressed to the City Engineer and MnDOT. Pentel asked how many trips would be generated from this development per day. Grimes estimated by calculated the square footage of the building and number of people in the building, the total trips per day would be 400 to 500 trips over an 8 to 12 hour period. Pentel noted that with this development and a possible development on the old White House site there would be more traffic using the signal at Hwy. 55. Pentel asked about the lighting on the back of the building which would face the residential area. Grimes commented that there would be some type of lighting on the north side of the building for security purposes, but has not discussed this with the applicant. He said the residents to the north would see the building, especially during the winter months. . Pentel asked about drainage on the site and eventually would the water drain toward the north. Grimes said the City wants to see the drainage tied to the pond to the North of the proposal, which MnDOT would be constructing. He said because construction of the building would occur before the construction of the pond, the drainage would have to go into the ditch system and then into the wetland area to the east. He continued by saying that there have been improvements to the Shaper ponds to help improve water quality before going into Sweeney Lake. McAleese asked how big a site needed to be before ponding is considered. Grimes said three acres. McAleese asked how big the site would be with the inclusion of Lot 3. Grimes said approximately 3-4 acres. Grimes said the applicant is proposing ways to filter storm water by using catch basins to catch grit in the storm sewers. McAleese asked if it was possible to create a pond on Lot 3 temporarily to alleviate any problems to the Shaper ponds. Grimes said that he could not address this issue. Grimes also commented that he discussed the storm water drainage with the City Engineer and Assistant Engineer and noted that they are very sensitive to how this drainage may affect Sweeney Lake. McAleese asked what the worse case scenario would be if the MnDOT pond was not constructed. Grimes said that other types of systems would need to be looked at in the catch basins. . Groger commented that City Code notes that the minimum size for a parking stall is 9'x20' and most of the spaces on the proposed site are 9'x18'. Grimes noted that the site is very narrow from north to south and maybe the building could be made thinner to accommodate adequate parking stall size. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 10 Pentel asked the location of the trash enclosures. Groger commented they are located in the basement of the garage area. Grimes noted the developer tried to enclose it. Grimes spoke about the 25 foot setback to the front of the building and told the commission that by moving the building closer to the frontage road, there would be . more space on the north side. He noted that landscaping plans were enclosed. Pentel said that she wanted to make sure there would be a fair amount of screening between the building and the residential area to the north. Grimes said staff could review the landscaping with Hennepin Parks or the City's forester. Darrell Anderson, 111 3rd Ave. No., Minneapolis, represented the applicant. Anderson said that he had heard a lot of questions being asked and believed it would be beneficial to the commission if they understood the entire project. He talked about Lot 3, noting that is was 90% occupied, 20-30 parking stalls are generally open, small tenants rent space on this site and not many trips are generated by these tenants. Anderson reviewed the site plan, talking about the trail easement on the north side. He also talked about the fire truck access around the building and the soils on the proposed site being poor. Anderson said on the north side of the building it would go down by a grade. Pentel questioned the elevation of the buildings. Anderson began to review the plans indicating different elevations than what was before the commission. He said the building had been redesigned and the commission did not have the revised plan in the packet sent to them. He talked about the berming on the north side with the foliage and said this would not be touched. Anderson talked about the parking plan and reviewed where the proof of parking would be located. He explained how the parking was calculated by reviewing the floor plan of the what spaces were included in the calculations. Anderson said that through these calculations it was derived at that 125 parking spaces would be needed. He said the building would be occupied by smaller use tenants and the applicant is looking for the same kind of tenants as those on Lot 3 arid believe it would be logical to conclude that this building should work the same way as the one on Lot 3. Anderson told the commission that they are not sure if the front curve, as shown on the site plan, is actually what MnDOT is proposing and need to verify MnDOT'S actual plans. . . Groger commented that the visual effect would look more like a three-story building. Anderson showed a landscape plan noting a berm on the front close to the building. He said that people entering on the east side would walk straight into the building, and on the west side would need to take a couple of steps up. He said it would present itself as a two-story building. He said on the north side of the building it . would go down a grade. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 11 . Groger commented on the numerous setback variances being requested and would it be feasible to construct a smaller building. Anderson said economically it would not work on the site. Pentel asked if the trash would be enclosed; Anderson responded yes. Kapsner commented on how the applicant justified his parking spaces noting that the applicant did not include the atrium and agrees with this in that they are using less of the building, whereby the code uses the entire building McAleese asked Anderson if they would be completing the process regarding the dedication of the trail easement; Anderson said this could be done. Pentel asked about the lighting on the property and Anderson replied that that part of the project has not yet been designed. Anderson briefly noted the lighting would be the type that provided safe walking to and from the building and lighting on the building would be low so it wouldn't bother the neighbors. . Prazak talked about the amount of parking on the site and noted 125 spaces. Anderson said there were 125 spaces without the eight proof of parking spaces. Kapsner said that there are actually 11 proof of parking spaces; Anderson said yes. Johnson asked about fire suppression on Lot 3. Grimes said that the original PUD says there will be fire suppression in the building on Lot 3 and this has never been taken care of. Grimes told Anderson that the applicant is encumbered by this fault on Lot 3 which in a code violation. Grimes also said that he has talked with the Chief of Fire and Inspections, Mark Kuhnly, who commented that the sprinkling of this building should be done. Anderson said that he doesn't believe this proposal should be encumbered by the requirements on Lot 3, but the applicant would be talking with staff concerning this issue. McAleese asked if staff had a copy of the new elevations. Anderson commented that they did not but would get that to staff. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. . Bonnie Mathis, 900 Angelo Drive, told the commission that she can see the property from her home. She said she moved to this area because it was tranquil and had wild life, and believes the wild life should be protected. She also noted that because of the Shaper property development she now has a view of Hwy. 55 which has already changed the area. She is concerned about security and safety in her own home. She told the commission that they should look at this development in terms of esthetics, safety and the sounds that would be created with the reconstructed Hwy. 100. Kapsner commented that the building would be constructed of stone on all four sides. Mathis said the building would not be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 12 attractive. Kapsner commented that it would not be made of cement blocks and that the building would act as a buffer for the area from the noise generated on the reconstructed Hwy. 100. He believes this would create a better situation than exists now. . Sandy Robin, 920 Toledo, said she agreed with Mathis as far as the esthetics were concerned but is not sure that the building could be made mor~ beautiful. She said she was more concerned with a buffer between the building and the residential homes to the north, and said what vegetation exists now is not enough. She believes the parking lot should be fully shielded from the homes and landscaping should be solid on the north side of the building. Pentel asked staff about shielding the neighborhood along Hwy. 100 with a sound wall. Grimes commented that there is some sentiment for this but some businesses may not view this as something good. Pentel asked what steps would need to be taken for a sound wall to be constructed. Grimes said he would talk with the City Engineer and then talk with MnDOT. Pentel commented that she lives in the area and the sound has increased dramatically because of the Shaper property project. Pentel said she was concerned about having enough screening on the north side and is also concerned with the property owner dedicating the trail which wouldn't go to the City and then takes the responsibility of landscaping away from the applicant. . She believes there should be dense landscaping along the north property line. She said she was also concerned with snow removal to the north side of the property. Grimes said language should be placed in the PUD Permit stating that if this trail, to the north of the lot, would be needed by Hennepin Parks, it would be given to the City or Hennepin Parks, otherwise it would remain in the property owner's hand and be used for landscaping. Kapsner commented to Pentel that Anderson said that the vegetation on the North side of the lot would stay and is she asking for more vegetation. Grimes reviewed the landscape plan saying that additional 6 foot Black Hills Spruce could be added in more places. Pentel commented that many office buildings leave its lights on at night and was there any possibility that the parking lot lights could be turned down. Anderson said that they would be on a time clock and could be turned down, but there would be a safety issue to consider. Grimes commented that it would be reasonable to turn the lights down on the north side of the buildings. Anderson also commented that residents should not see the lighting because of the box light fixture being used, in that the light lenses are highly directional and they do not create a glare. He said the lights on the building would be screened and could be controlled. Joe Antonucci, marketing agent for the project, believes that the project would be a positive thing for the neighborhood commenting on depressed railroad bed where . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 13 . people could traverse through. He said having activity in the area would only prohibit people from gathering in the area. McAleese asked how the tenant base would differ from that on Lot 3. Joe commented that there are 39 suites in the building on Lot 3, of which 35 are occupied. He said there is one management office, one conference room and one vacant room. He said they would differ in that the offices on Lot 3 are for single suites. Antonucci said tenants now want more space to allow for three or four people in an office. McAleese asked Antonucci his opinion about signage for the building. Antonucci commented that the building would have multi-tenant users and signage should be put inside the building; however, there must be some kind of signage for the site. Pentel commented on the existing signage noting that it was part of the old hotel site and quite large. Grimes commented the underlying zoning of this PUD is commercial and therefore could have quite a bit of signage. He said that the commission could say that the site is more consistent with a Business and Professional Office and suggest signage be permitted under that district. . Pentel commented on the signage for the entire site which includes Lot 3, but noted that in some cases the applicant did not want to include Lot 3, such as parking. She questioned why Lot 3 is not part of this PUD. McAleese said that he does not want to rely on Lot 3 for parking because it may be redeveloped down the road and therefore cannot rely on a cross-parking agreement because they may need more parking. He said the commission should determine if there is enough parking on the proposed property. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner said that he believes there is adequate parking on the site and goes along with Anderson in that there is alot of square footage tied up with public space and the atrium. Groger talked about the space on the basement level noting that if a tenant wanted to use the conference room or storage room for office it could be done. Grimes commented that the PUD states that these areas would be used for storage and conference room space only. If the applicant should request this staff would review the PUD and determine that it cannot be used for anything other than storage and a conference room. . Pentel questioned the length of the stalls at 18 feet and the aisles at 24 foot. Grimes commented that the aisles could be made smaller to accommodate the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 14 required parking stall length. He said many cities now allow 18 feet vs. the City's requirement of 20 feet. . Johnson asked how the dedication of the trail should be handled. Grimes said that he would like to talk with Rick Jacobson, Director of Park and Rec, to see if it should be reserved for the future and used for landscaping for the next 15-20 years as long as it wasn't needed for the trail. McAleese believes it might be better do dedicate the trail by easement. Grimes agreed and said that this would add more of setback on the north side. McAleese commented that this application only qualifies because it is an amendment to an existing PUD. Grimes said originally it was a PUD because there were two buildings on one lot. He said the problem is that once a PUD exists, its hard to do away with it. Grimes said that if this was not a PUD, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) would be reviewing it for variances. He believes through the PUD process the City has more control than the BZA would. Pentel said that the number of variances bothers her along with the lack of landscape screening. She said she is not sure what will happen in the future concerning the trail, roads and ponding, and is not happy about the drainage going . to into a ditch and then eventually Sweeney Lake. Pentel said that if all three lots were taken into consideration, the applicant would have to look at ponding for the site. She believes the traffic problems at the lights on Hwy. 55 is timing and this can be worked out Kapsner said that he agrees that the proposal is not a perfect solution but some of the items discussed are not the problem of the property. He said that there is an owner who has property zoned for commercial and wants to put a commercial building on the site. He believes this is a reasonable development. He believes this is a reasonable and workable solution for the property. Prazak said that the ownership of the "trail" property should be left with the existing owner and address additional landscaping on the north. McAleese said that he likes the proposed building and believes this is better than seeing an asphalt and weedy lot. He said he appreciated seeing the level of detailed plans submitted and made it easier for the commission to see what was being proposed. McAleese said that he could not support the proposal because of the number of variances being requested and that some of these variances are due to Lot 3 being left out of the proposal. He said philosophically, the parcel is zoned commercial and one should be able to build on it, but when they buy a parcel, they should know what they are buying, but this doesn't mean the City should throw out . common sense. He believes that if the proposal included all the lots, the commission would be seeing something different. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 15 . McAleese said if this proposal should go forward he would recommend that condition No.4 reflect floor and elevation changes and said the language in No.6 is adequate. He said the issue of ponding and drainage needs to be date specific in case MnDOT does not do the ponding and suggested a new condition. Groger said he agreed with McAleese that he too is bothered by the fact that the commission is reviewing a proposal which doesn't include Lot 3. He said given the situation concerning the proposed lot he can see a need for variances but there are too many variances being requested. Groger said there are parking issues and questioned where MnDOT would be placing the frontage road. He said there were too many problems with the proposal and would be voting against it. Johnson also said that she was concerned about Lot 3 not being included in this proposal. She finds the plans submitted very well rendered, but there needs to be more landscaping on the north side and reservation of the trail dedication. She believes this is a good use for a piece of undeveloped property. Pentel said that she was concerned with setbacks seeing a lot of pavement and building going into these areas. She believes something good could be building on this site if Lot 3 were included. She agreed with other commissioners that the renderings were quite well done. . MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Prazak to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 with the following conditions: 1. The site plan prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated February 16, 1998 shall be part of this approval. 2. The grading and utility plans prepared by Howard R. Green Engineers and dated 2/26/98 shall be come a part of this approval. 3. The landscape plans for the site prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated 2/16/98 shall be come a part of this approval. 4. The amended floor and elevation plans prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated shall be become a part of this approval. 5. All conditions related to Lot 3 found in Amendment No. 1 to PUD No. 42 shall be come a part of this approval (attached). . 6. The developer provide the City of Golden Valley an easement or title to the north 13 feet of the property in order to provide the trail right-of-way for the future Hennepin Parks bike trail. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 16 . 7. The developer will provide some type of drainage or ponding on the site if MnDOT does not construct its pond north of the proposal by 8. The developer must provide a fire suppression system acceptable to the Fire Marshall in the office building on Lot 3 within six months of the approval of the second PUD amendment. 9. The developer shall provide additional landscaping on the north side of the property to be reviewed and approved by City staff. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Building Review. 10. Signage for the site should comply with that found in the Business and Professional Office District. 11. The developer shall provide 125 parking spaces on the site with 11 "proof of parking" spaces. The vote was 3 to 3 (one commissioner absent). IV. Reports on Meetinos of the Housino and Redevelopment Authoritv. City Council and Board of ZoninQ Appeals . No reports were given. V. Other Business A. Land Use Plan - Presentation by the Subcommittee Pentel requested that this item be tabled to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission due to the lateness of the hour. VI. Adiournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . MEMORANDUM OA TE: March 20, 1998 TO: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mary Oold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development SUBJECT: ELECTION OF OFFICERS According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1, the annual meeting of the Planning Commission should take place at its first meeting in March. The Planning Commission usually does not proceed with elections until the City Council has made its appointments to Boards and Commissions. The City Council made its appointments at its meeting of March 17. . Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission table its election until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting in April due to the fact that the new appointed commissioner, Bob Shaffer, has indicated to staff that he may want to be the Planning Commission Representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. His first Planning Commission meeting will be in April. .