08-24-98 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Monday, August 24, 1998 .
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes - August 10, 1998
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (No. 74)
Applicant: Tom Malik (Gitgo Service Station)
Address: 601 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
To allow for the upgrade of an existing service station in the
Commercial Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to change the
direction of the gas pumps and canopy from an east-west direction to a
north-south direction.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
IV. Other Business
A. Review of Attendance
V. Adjournment
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 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,
August 10, 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 Shaffer. Also present were Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold,
Administrative Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes -- July 27, 1998
MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the
July 27, 1998 minutes as submitted with three minor changes.
II. Informal Public HearinQ - Minor Subdivision
Applicant:
Gopher Oil
Address
9000 10th Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
To allow for the subdivision of the existing lot in order to create a
second lot of 4.26 acres in size.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave a summary of Director Mark Grimes' report. She
outlined, using the location map, where the subject property was located and major roads in
the area. Knoblauch said the existing lot is approximately 12.51 acres in size and the lot
split would make the existing lot 8.25 acres and the proposed lot 4.26 acres in size.
Knoblauch said the applicant was to show existing parking and proof of parking. This was
demonstrated on the site plan. She said at this time, the subject property is used for
manufacturing, and that 85 percent (approximately 85,000 sq.ft.) is used for manufacturing
or warehousing. She said it should be in the record that if the property were sold, it could
not be used for office unless they demonstrated that all parking requirements could be met
on the site due to the lot split.
Knoblauch reviewed the ten conditions of consideration.
Knoblauch said staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision for a lot split with the
recommendation that the final plat show all easements. She said that Director Grimes said
in his staff memo that a dedication fee should be paid, but she believes Grimes meant to
say that the new site would need to be reviewed for ponding. Knoblauch told the
Commission that she would address this issue with the Director when he returned from
vacation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Two
.
Chair Pentel asked about the ponding issue and would the applicant need to provide on-site
ponding. Knoblauch said the new smaller site would be reviewed to determine if on-site
ponding was required.
Martens commented on the propane tank on the west side of the property and is it
permitted in the setback area. Pentel asked staff to review this setback issue further.
Martens asked about the restriction of uses on the site based on parking, and asked if
additional parking would be allowed north of the existing parking lot. Knoblauch said staff
would like it in the minutes concerning future uses and required parking. She said this way
the file can be reviewed for future discussions of proposed uses and parking requirements.
Roseanne Hope, Dorsey & Whitney, 220 South Sixth Street, represented the applicant.
She told the Commission that the new lot would not be developed at this time, that the
purpose for the subdivision was for tax purposes only. She also noted that Gopher News,
the owner and occupant of the existing site, has no intention of moving or changing its use
at this time.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed
the informal public hearing.
Pentel noted that this was a very straight forward request with the only issue of potential
development and the requirement of ponding on the site. She recommended staff to review
the matter of park dedication vs. ponding.
.
MOVED by Martens, seconded by McAleese and the motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Gopher News for a minor
subdivision to split the existing lot located at 9000 10th Avenue North.
III. Informal Public Hearina - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation)
Applicant:
Golden Valley VFW
Address:
7775 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
Consolidate three lots into one in order to allow for the construction of
a 22' x 28' addition onto the rear of the existing building.
City Planner Knoblauch review the location map pointing out where the subject property
was located, other properties and major roads. Knoblauch told the Commission that this
request is for a lot consolidation of three lots and that an existing building expands two of
the lots.
Knoblauch told the Commission that there are existing variances on the property and that .
the applicant would be going before the Board of Zoning Appeals in August requesting
several other variances. She then reviewed the ten conditions for consideration
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Three
commenting on easements and other public agencies having jurIsdiction over the property.
Knoblauch pointed out that the applicant must grant the city any required easements. She
noted the easements that must be vacated or given: two easements going through the
property which would need to be vacated if this had not been done, a 10 foot utility
easement and three foot bike easement along Medicine Lake Road, and six foot easement
along any side or rear property lines. Knoblauch told the Commission that staff had not yet
received comments from Hennepin County, but based on similar applications and
comments received from the County, staff expects the county will require an easement of
seven feet for right-of-way for future widening of Medicine Lake Road.
Knoblauch commented that staff would ask if the City Attorney if a title opinion is necessary
for the granting of utility easements along property lines.
Knoblauch said staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to county comments
regarding dedication of additional right-of-way for the future widening of Medicine Lake
Road, and the dirt pile next to the garage be removed along with the two street sweeping
machines. She said the removal of these items must take place prior to a permit being
pulled for the new construction.
Martens questioned whether the existing sidewalk, next to the curb and not in the sidewalk
easement, would the sidewalk need to be moved if additional right-of-way is required.
Knoblauch said the standard 80-foot road usually includes a basic sidewalk, but the
additional three feet the county may ask for would be for the bike trail.
McAleese asked about the variances required for the site. Administrative Secretary Mary
Dold responded that variances are required for parking and the existing garage. McAleese
noted that with the consolidation of lots the variances would not exist anymore and believed
it would be appropriate to list all variances required for the site when it goes before the
Board of Zoning Appeals in August.
Shaffer asked if the dumpster location would be addressed at the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA). Secretary Dold said that this item would be included on the agenda for BZA review.
McAleese asked if the easement running under the existing building should be addressed.
Knoblauch said it should be incorporated into the recommendation.
The applicant was not present to answer questions.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed
the informal public hearing.
Kapsner commented that the approval should list the easements as per staff's
recommendations.
McAleese said some of the concerns for this property would be worked out at the BZA
meeting and found the request to be straightforward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Four
.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request for a lot consolidation by the Golden Valley VFW
with the conditions that all required easements be given, and the easements going through
the property be vacated, the dirt pile be removed from the site and the two sweeping
machines either be placed in the garage or removed from the site before a building permit is
granted for the construction of the addition.
IV. Informal Public Hearina - Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 55
Applicant:
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Address:
8909 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
Amend the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 55 by allowing
the construction of a cellular telephone & radio tower on the site
which changes the site plan attached to the existing CUP
City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission that the applicant is requesting an amendment
to an existing CUP on the Wilkins' Pontiac site in order to construct a telephone and radio
tower on the site. She reviewed the location map noting the subject property, the frontage .
road and other major roads in the area.
Knoblauch reviewed the site plan pointing out where the monopole would be located and
told the Commission that the applicant would like to add a second story to the existing trash
enclosure; this second story would house the telecommunications equipment. She told the
Commission that there was concern when the dealership went in that there would be
intermittent problems when car shipments arrived, but staff has not heard of any problems
recently.
Knoblauch said that the property is zoned Industrial which allows for minor cell towers, such
as this one, that are not directly related to the monopole business. She said that the
second story enclosure would take out two parking spaces due to the stairs required to
enter the second level. Knoblauch said another issue is that the existing trash enclosure is
located in the side setback and staff is not sure how this happened because the original
plans did not include the trash enclosure. She said the Commission could comment on the
trash enclosure, but it would be the BZA that addresses it through a variance and if the BZA
denied the request the applicant could then appeal to the City Council.
Knoblauch then reviewed the ten factors of consideration for a CUP. Knoblauch said staff
recommends approval for A T& T's request with the following conditions:
1.
The BZA approve all necessary variances. (Several variances cover existing
conditions.)
The proposed site plan must be revised to reflect all on-site parking and must be
accompanied by an analysis of how well the parking meets the current code
requirements.
.
2.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Five
3. The site plan and elevation detail be made a part of the amended CUP.
4. The floor plans dated 12/18/92 remain attached to the CUP.
5. The ground floor and upper floor of the original building be used as originally
intended as noted in the permit. The lower level of the trash enclosure be used only
as a trash enclosure and the second level of the addition be used only for such
equipment as necessary to maintain the proper function of the cellular monopole.
6. Additional construction shall match the general appearance represented in the
elevation detail.
7. The monopole shall not exceed a height of 80 150 feet as measured from ground
level.
8. There shall be a maximum of fifty employees allowed on the site.
9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit
Pentel asked about condition No. 7 and whether the height should be changed to reflect the
proposed height of the monopole on the plan, that 80 feet should cover the height.
.
Pentel asked about the height of the signage on the site. Knoblauch commented that the
height was probably dictated by the 1-394 construction. Pentel asked if staff could find out
the height of the sign. Knoblauch said that could be found in the Inspection's file on the
property. Pentel said she would like this information passed along to the City Council and
BZA so it is on record.
Martens asked if there were restrictions on what the monopole could be used for, such as
signs. Knoblauch said there is nothing specific in code about signage on monopoles.
Pentel asked whether the Commission could place restrictions on what is tied to the
monopole. Knoblauch said the code states these are strictly monopoles, but being able to
place signs on the tower is not in code.
Groger asked if staff had reviewed the files for this property to determine how the trash
enclosure was placed where it is now located on the site. Knoblauch said the files have
been reviewed and found no information, when key personnel left, who reviewed most of
the construction permits, so did the knowledge of how the enclosure was placed where it is.
Groger asked if it was implicit that it would be inside storage or was it stated so. Knoblauch
said it was not stated that it would be inside storage, but because it was not presented it
should have been inside.
Groger asked if the original plan showed a contemplated trash enclosure. Knoblauch said it
did not.
.
Groger asked if the trash enclosure is in violation of city code, by being in the side setback,
why would the Planning Commission consider an expansion of this nonconformity.
Knoblauch said the issue of the trash enclosure being in the side setback would need to go
to the BZA for review. She said staff is unsure how the trash enclosure was constructed
where it is now located.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Six
.
Pentel said what we are doing here is enlarging upon and making permanent a use that is
violating our current code. McAleese agreed, and the argument could be made that if the
city allowed the enclosure to go there, the commission would be estopped from making
them move the enclosure, but to expand the use at this time is an entirely different process.
Knoblauch commented that the applicant has been told that this is not a slam-dunk,
especially by putting a second story onto something already located in the setback.
Shaffer asked if the trash enclosure lined up with the building and out of the side yard
would there need to be a variance granted for the monopole. Knoblauch said the monopole
would need a variance because it would be in the setback.
Kapsner commented that he suspects that the construction of this trash enclosure just
happened. He asked if by moving the trash enclosure out of the setback would parking
spaces be taken. Knoblauch said either parking or circulation would be taken that is a
functioning part of the site.
Kapsner believed this was a good idea of placing the equipment room on top of the existing
trash enclosure, but could it be placed on top of an existing building or used as a small part
of the building. Knoblauch commented that the applicant probably needs personnel to be
able to get access to the equipment when the business is not open.
McAleese commented that this is an issue of a two-story accessory use in a setback that
will be decided by the BZA. He believes this is a policy issue and is reluctant about the
procedure of addressing this. Knoblauch commented that city code says that a function of
the BZA is not only to grant variances but also to reconsider administrative determinations
and staff at this point have administratively said a) this cannot be called part of the main
building because it has no access inside and b) you cannot have a two story accessory
building because there is nothing in code and we have not allowed it in the past. The BZA
will look at these two decisions. McAleese has concerns on standards that the BZA has set
in the past.
.
Peter Beck, representative for AT&T, theorized how the trash enclosure was placed in the
side yard. Beck commented on the proposal noting that the footprint of the trash enclosure
would not be enlarged, that the proposal is to only go upward. He said the base of the
monopole would be screened by existing vegetation and the trash enclosure. Beck
believes that from the perspective that the base of the pole would be hidden by the
enclosure and vegetation this proposal is good for existing facility. Beck next explained
what vicinity would be covered by the monopole and its capacity. He noted that in this part
of the Metro area, more sites are needed. Beck agreed with the recommendations by staff
and would agree to a parking evaluation.
Pentel asked if AT&T would lease the property from Wilkins. Beck said a small piece of
land would be leased. Pentel asked what would happen if the pole fell onto the neighbor's
property. Beck said AT&T is liable, but these poles are very safe.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Seven
Pentel asked if A T& T owned a majority of monopoles or are there a variety of companies.
Beck explained what kinds of organizations were licensed and what type of poles are
needed. He said as the AT&T clientele grows, more poles would need to be added.
Martens asked if there was any trend to use the poles for advertisement. Beck said A T& T
has declined this type of use and only small safety type notices are placed on the poles.
McAleese asked about Condition No. 7 and would they object to a limit of 80 feet. Beck
said at this time they had no objection. He said the only advantage would be to the City in
that a taller pole could accommodate another use instead of constructing another tower.
Knoblauch asked the applicant to comment on how many other companies could use
AT&T's pole. Beck said only one more could be added on. Knoblauch asked if AT&T
needed to add additional footage, could it be done by going up instead of replacing the
entire pole. Beck said poles are attached by bolts so by adding another pole would be no
big deal because most poles are sleeve-type joints. He said the commission may want to
leave the higher height to offer another user the use of the existing pole.
.
Groger asked how often parking spaces would be lost due to maintenance. Beck said
maintenance is performed once a month and at off-hours. He believes there would be two
parking spaces lost due to the location of the stairs to the second story equipment room.
He questioned the flexibility of locating the stairs to the east side noting that there would be
no impact on parking, but the stairs would be placed in the side yard setback. He said he
does not believe the stairs would impact the adjoining neighbor. Knoblauch commented
that the BZA may want to know if this is an option.
Shaffer asked about the existing structure and what would need to be done in order to add
a second story. Beck said that the trash enclosure would need to be rebuilt. Shaffer asked
what the chances were of moving it to the west so the enclosure was not in the side yard
setback. Beck commented that it is in a parking area now.
Shaffer suggested moving the enclosure to the west and making a cut into the existing
facility, and then it would not be deemed an accessory structure. Shaffer highly suggested
that this be looked at. Beck commented that by moving the enclosure over the monopole
would no longer be screened.
Pentel commented that the monopole would be seen by anyone who uses 1-394. Shaffer
said that he doesn't see the pole being shielded as a real issue.
Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the
informal public hearing.
.
Kapsner commented that he would prefer to use one or two more parking spaces than
permit encroachment into the setback area. He.believes the parking problem occurs when
shipments come in, otherwise parking is not an issue. He likes the idea that the tower be a
bit higher so another user could use it. Kapsner said he's becoming concerned with the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Eight
.
placement of these monopoles because he was led to believe that they would not be placed
so close together and that other users would have access to them, and now it appears that
they may be in every block.
Pentel said she was not concerned about losing the two parking spaces because it is only
at certain times that the site is tight. She said she does not want to see the stairway in the
side setback and questioned the safety of the open stairway considering this is a lot that is
not totally fenced in.
Shaffer commented that being the representative to the BZA would be carrying all these
thoughts to the BZA meeting. He said his main concern is the structure in the side yard
setback. He said logically, the building is there now so leave it, but because they are
tearing it down he would prefer that they look at moving it to the west. He said he has no
concern with the monopole being in the setback.
Groger said he would be voting against the request because he sees no overriding need for
the proposal as it is before the commission tonight. He said when the CUP was initially
approved, the staff report said there were setback issues on all four sides and there have
been parking issues in the past; this is a very tightly developed site. He commented that by
denying the request the city is not denying him a legitimate use of the property - this is an
accessory use. He believes that it fits in the general neighborhocd, but is not convinced
there might not be other sites in this area. Groger said to take a situation that
nonconforming and to legitimize and expand upon is not appropriate situation. He said he
could not support the expansion of a nonconforming use, but would be willing to look at the
trash enclosure being moved.
.
McAleese said that he would be voting against the request even though this is the type of
neighborhood he would like to see a monopole be placed in. He concurred with Groger's
comments and agreed with Shaffer's comment to move the enclosure to the west, out of the
setback. He believes the Commission is making things worse by passing the request.
Pentel asked staff if there were a motion made to deny should there be a second motion
with conditions in case the City Council approves the request. Knoblauch said yes.
Kapsner asked Beck if AT&T needed the equipment building. Beck said yes that A T& T's
buildings are somewhat larger than other users.
Shaffer asked if there is the potential that another user could be added to the pole. Beck
said this pole could be made strong enough to accommodate another user. He added that
if there were another building or structure in the area that A T& T could use, he would not be
before the Planning Commission tonight.
Kapsner commented that there is a problem with the site but believes that there will be a
greater need for more poles, and if it is 'not approved on this site, there will be another one .
close by. Pentel said finding a location is the user's problem that the Commission's problem
is dealing with an accessory structure that is nonconforming and then added on to it.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Nine
Martens said that the monopole does not bother him but the nonconformity issue does.
Beck commented that he knows it is the users problem, but A T& T is willing to work with the
community. He said that the Wilkins site is a good location and if Wilkins does not want to
move the structure, AT&T may not use the site.
Shaffer said that he has a problem with the existing structure located in the setback. Beck
said that it would be Wilkins call to move the trash enclosure.
McAleese commented the commission would be setting a precedent by allowing the
construction of the second level and thus expanding a nonconforming use. He believes
that this is a terrific site for a monopole. Beck said that this is an industrially zoned district
and should be able to put on a second story onto the trash enclosure.
Kapsner asked if the proposal is to use two parking spaces for the stairway, why not use
the spaces to locate the equipment room next to the trash enclosure. Beck said Wilkins
would have to address this issue. Pentel commented there would still be a nonconforming
structure in the setback.
.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to
recommend to the City Council to deny the request to allow the construction of a monopole
and second story telecommunications equipment room above the existing trash enclosure
for the following reasons:
1. The property is already densely developed, with significant landscaping setback
variances granted on all four sides at the time of construction in 1992; the added
structure setback variances required for the current proposal indicate that there
is simply not enough room for additional construction.
2. Though small in terms of its footprint, the proposed trash enclosure/equipment
building is considerably taller than most accessory buildings; this higher profile is
of particular concern because of the required setback variance, which could
establish an undesirable precedent.
3. The fact that the existing trash enclosure was somehow built in a setback area
can be overlooked as an accident, but purposely allowing it to be rebuilt in the
same location and at a greater height may give the impression that the City
somehow endorses such accidents.
.
McAleese said in the event that the City Council approves the amended CUP, it should
include the ten conditions as noted in staff's memo dated August 4, 1998. Shaffer
suggested one additional item would be for the applicant to consider moving the trash
enclosure out of the side yard setback. Groger commented that condition No. 7 should be
amended to 80 feet. Shaffer commented that he sees little difference between an 80 feet
and 100 feet. Pentel disagreed not knowing what the height of the sign was and would be
better able to determine the height of the monopole. If it were as high as the sign it would
be too tall.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Ten
McAleese commented that by limiting the height, we are forcing someone to come back to
the City if they wanted to go higher than that, so would favor setting a cap of 80 or 100 feet.
Kapsner questioned whether the primary reason for denial should be made clearer.
Martens commented that if the building were moved to the west, it would eliminate the
setback issue, but parking would still be an issue. Shaffer and Pentel concurred with
Martens that the main issue is the structure in the setback and the reduction of parking
spaces due to the stairway for the addition.
McAleese said his motion includes staff's 10 conditions including language that the
applicant look at moving the enclosure out of the setback.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously that should the
council set aside the preceding recommendation and vote instead to approve the proposal
then the following conditions should be attached.
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve any necessary variances before
final approval is granted by the City Council.
2. Before going to the BZA, the proposed site plan must be revised to reflect all
on-site parking and must be accompanied by an analysis of how well the
parking meets current code requirements, so that the need for a parking
variance can be properly determined. The applicant should also make every
effort to provide the BZA with options for getting the proposed trash
enclosure/equipment building out of the required setback area, even if it
means removing additional parking.
3. The revised site plan and the elevation detail shall be made part of the
amended CUP as approved; any additional changes that may be required
beyond those noted in #2 above, shall be incorporated into final plans
submitted by the applicant for permit attachment.
4. The floor plans dated 2/18/92 and approved as part of the original CUP shall
remain attached to the amended CUP. Floor plans shall not be required for
the additional construction.
5. The ground floor of the original building may be used for automobile sales,
servicing, leasing, additional parts storage, and miscellaneous employee
areas not identified on the approved floor plan. The upper floor of the
original building may be used for parts storage and for such offices or other
employee areas as are incidental to the automobile sales and service
business, which may include leasing. The ground floor of the addition shall
be used only as a trash enclosure, and the upper floor shall be used only for
such equipment as necessary to maintain the proper function of the cellular
monopole.
6. Additional construction, including the monopole, shall match the general
appearance represented in the elevation detail.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 10, 1998
Page Eleven
7. The monopole shall not exceed a height of 80 feet, as measured from ground
level.
8. There shall be a maximum of fifty employees allowed on the site.
9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds
for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
V. reports on meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv. City
Council and Board of Zonina Appeals
No reports were given.
VI. Other Business
A. Attendance of Planning Commissioner(s) to the MnAPA conference
-At the time of the meeting, no commissioners had decided to attend the meeting.
B. Other Discussions
Pentel briefly talked about the construction going on at the Minneapolis Crisis Nursery site,
specifically noting the height of the trash enclosure to the rear of the building and asked if
this was suppose to go elsewhere on the site.
Shaffer agreed that the trash enclosure sits very high. After some discussion it was
believed that the enclosure is placed where it should be. Shaffer commented that trash
enclosures should be included inside buildings.
Knoblauch told the commission that Mark Grimes was following up on the concern about
the height of the berms on the Valley Creek site. She said Grimes recalls that Valley Creek
said they would work the details out Mallard Creek. Pentel said she recalls that there would
be a berm high enough to block out the car lights glaring into the apartments
VII. Adiournment
Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 9pm.
Emilie Johnson, $ecretary
~
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 20, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Application for Conditional Use
Permit 98-74, to Allow a Gasoline/Service Station in a
Commercial Zoning District; 601 Boone Avenue North;
Tom Malik, Applicant
e
The subject property (location map attached) has been in continuous operation as
a gas station and automobile service center since 1969. Because the City did not
begin to regulate conditional uses until 1981 , this is a "grandfathered" situation
that was considered legally nonconforming without a conditional use permit (CUP)
as long as there were no major site changes. At present, the owner wants to
completely redo the gas pumping area along Boone Avenue (site plan attached),
thus triggering the CUP process and a related variance application to make the
site conform with current zoning standards. The owner plans no structural
changes to anything other than the pumping area.
Features of the facility include six proposed gas pumping stops (up from four
existing pumps) and three service bays. A small amount of retail sales take
place, primarily involving automotive supplies; there is no full-scale "convenience
store" on site. There is also a small storage room and two restrooms. Zoning
nonconformities include inadequate setback along a portion of Boone Avenue,
incomplete curb-and-gutter installation around parking and driveway areas, and a
propane tank that extends into the Highway 55 setback. Existing parking has not
yet been analyzed for adequacy, but there appears to be ample room on-site for
additional parking if necessary.
e
Factors For Consideration
In approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on
ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to proposed
CUP 98-74 are as follows:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The facility has been in place and doing
well for many years.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan designates the
subject property for long term commercial use. A gasoline/service station is
consistent with that designation.
e
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of the CUP will not
substantially alter the extent or nature of on-site development or activity. The
facility does not currently appear to have any significant negative effect on
nearby property values, despite the fact that the service bays face an adjacent
restaurant with bay doors often left open and little buffering vegetation. A
propane tank now located along Highway 55 was moved there several years
ago when its prior location was determined to be a hazard to the restaurant.
4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow
and Conaestion in the Area: The increase from four pumps to six is likely
to generate minor additional traffic entering and exiting the facility, but the
increase is expected to come from cars already passing the site rather than
from vehicles that now travel other routes. New traffic patterns caused by the
completion of 1-394 have resulted in substantial spillover congestion at the
Boone Avenue/Highway 55 intersection during peak hours. Neither of the
facility's Boone Avenue driveways meets MnDOT's minimum proximity
standard for safe and efficient intersection functioning. Elsewhere around
Valley Square the City has worked with MnDOT to eliminate driveways
located too close to Highway 55. Some staff members recall that a new
driveway onto Golden Valley Road was approved for the facility by former City
Engineer Fred Salsbury in 1997 with the intent that the southerly of the two
Boone Avenue driveways be removed; however, there is no written evidence
of that intent. The owner has no recollection of discussing the removal of a
Boone Avenue driveway, and feels he needs both of them to accommodate
bulk gasoline deliveries. Acting City Engineer Jeff Oliver says the two
driveways do not appear to constitute a hazardous situation at this time.
5. Effect of any Increase in Population: Approving the proposed CUP will not
result in any increase in the employee population of the facility.
6. Increase in Noise Level: Approving the proposed CUP is not expected to
result in any more or less on-site noise.
7. Any Odor. Dust. Smoke. Gas. or Vibration Caused by the Use: Approving
the proposed CUP is not expected to cause any more of an impact than the
facility already generates; the new pumps may result in a reduction of gas
fumes and/or spills.
8. Any Increase in Flies. Rats. or other Vermin: Approving the proposed CUP
is not expected to result in any more or less of an impact.
9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: The proposed new
gas pump canopy will be much larger than the existing one, and is expected to
be the most obvious visual change to the property. Staff have not seen any
canopy design sketches, so color scheme, lighting, and other details are
unknown at the time of writing this memo. Junk cars are another occasional
problem at some service stations, though there is only one complaint on
record for this facility. City Code prohibits any outdoor storage in commercial
areas (code section attached), yet dumpsters and other miscellaneous items
are in plain view on several sides of the building; as part of the CUP approval,
the property owner should be required to either permanently relocate all
dumpsters and other stored items into the storage room or one of the service
bays, or submit revised plans incorporating a new storage building to meet all
applicable code requirements.
e
e
2
e
10. Other Concerns Reaardina the Use: The facility is not in close proximity to
residential areas, which generally raise the greatest concerns for auto-related
conditional uses. Staff have not noticed any outdoor display and sales racks
at the facility, but they have become a problem at some of the City's service
stations, particularly from an appearance standpoint; it is not unusual to limit
the location and extent of such racks as part of a CUP. The site is low and
fairly close to the creek, but Jeff Oliver reports that the Bassett Creek Water
Management Organization has no conditions to impose beyond standard
practices covered in other regulations. A memo from the Inspections
Department (attached) flags some of the "other regulations" that apply to the_
site; they will be broadly covered in one of the routine CUP terms (see #7
below), and do not need to be individually written into the permit.
e
Recommended Action
Staff recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-74, with a list of
conditions as follows:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve any necessary variances, or the
owner shall agree to any remedies required by the BZA, before final approval
is granted by the City Council.
2. The site plan dated 7/28/98 shall be made part of the CUP as approved, or
any changes that may be required by the BZA shall be incorporated into an
amended plan submitted by the applicant for permit attachment.
3. All servicing and repair work shall be done either at the gas pumps or within
the service bays, as appropriate.
4. There shall be no change in the basic use of any areas within the building,
except for company administrative or storage uses, without first formally
amending the conditional use permit.
5. Except for company tow trucks, no vehicles shall be stored on the site during
non-business hours unless they are inside one of the service bays.
6. All dumpsters and other stored items shall be permanently relocated into the
storage room or service bays except as necessary for trash pick-up.
7. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds
for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
Attachments:
. Location Map
. Site Plan
. City Code Section 11.30, Subd. 5
. Inspections Department Memo Dated August 8, 1998
e
3
~ ..
"-
III
-If
m::::
\Or....
00)
"'.
o
~
tl\1.-
2
. ~ ,,'-'
.....:v'l."l~'O ....
....... C. (....,<.. Co. "'~'1' tt
, ,.!.~ ' .- w Co t)\1
f.. c~.:l~ ,',h''' a~ .
':1' .~'-J"r:."
"'. 1#"
,:~
ui
~
'"
~ .
()
....
rn"-
~
N 88.Z2'/G"W 3 76.:1 B
Z'H.IZ 7~.oJ
I
I
I &
Ioq-
:;:<0
~I~
I
I
I
Z'J4.o05 ~
N8<t.43"S"E 588.01
sQ\,)~~
~M;
.. "t
~ ~.
()
~
2
.....
.
"-
Ie
ClCl
~ g
i ~
~ r
~.
...
'--{
\J ~\,\-.~
.
8450
8,00 -
..... (,31'0
...
I,
"
ACRES
218.005
II
a: ~
::> oq-
~ .Q 3,
F- .
<.J N
IJJ
C '8840-8804
3~
~'\" ~O .
~\:)~<r;. ~~e
. '\ ~ ~~e
~~-:::,~5J OO~e ~.18
S:\<o
ItC Q\:) _ ~_ _ 44"L
'2- t,O
~
~Qt
In
QC',
N
S8B
_ _~_ .1-TH- _ _AVE,.:~rjJO._
" ,:0 '6.~ I .':><, '\
~. INDUSTRIAL
,:,'~51
7S~. '7
~"., .
, ::,
/ (-'.
"C'.s:
VALLt.' ~\Ju~nt:. ~IIU
2,
~ r..
3
.
'"
r ao
.'"0 ,Jj
....'"
"....
2
:3
~
~ .
,_~1.:- 1-1.-..' .I.'"
; =
""\ ~,
:.1'>
~ ':
i. :~'.~.;
~. -.....
~: -~~.
- ....,.
.""\
.J .~
0:-1 '"
..,., N
- j",> ~~.~~-
"" '.::.,....~ ....
'---' '~-
_.
---
--.---
------ .
.",!.. ~ ',-
~. -: '. . ).-
---- .- ---
--:i,~?!.
::::::-
.:
" -
... -
-r--
'"
;:
.n
....... .
. ." "'-
~,
'.)/.
0:.
JO
...
\
l-
F..tO !'G.d;'j
u
" ~. A
...
....
....
88'/
~I
,]
35
a: .. "J
:::> :. ~. B 0
00
J ~ I~
<.J o '" o.
~ LaJ ... .. 00'
C .
ST.
..,
.
!"! ~
.
Q
>
..J
m
LJ
> ::. ~ 01
C:( '" ..
. I
~--J
~ ~ ~.
. I
".
.g
<.
c.
~
.,
J
-.:
.....
~:-........ ...~
e
e
e
K. Pool halls.
S 11.30
L. Class II restaurants (drive-in, fast food, etc.)
Source: Ordinance No. 609
Effective Date: 11-11-83
M. Class III restaurants, bars, night clubs, etc.
N. Sales, or show rooms (auto, machinery, boats, etc.)
O. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines, coin
or token operated machines and equipment, and other similar uses.
P. Video game arcades.
Source: Ordinance No. 615
Effective Date: 5-25-84
Q. Heliports, as herein defined.
Source: Ordinance No. 643
Effective Date: 11-16-84
R. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No . 712
Effective Date: 6-23-88
S. Marine Engine Repair.
Source: Ordinance No.4, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 8-25-88
Subdivision 5. Restricted Uses. No premises shall be used wholly or in
part for the storage of any material whatsoever except where such materials are stored in
a building and where the character of such building conforms with the general
development of a Commercial District and no building or premises in the Commercial
District shall be used for any kind of manufacture, repairing, alteration, converting or
finishing which uses mechanical power aggregating more than five (5) horsepower per
2,000 feet of ground area. Ground area means the total area of the lot or parcel of land on
which a building using mechanical power is located and not just the area of the part of the
lot or parcel of land actually covered by the building.
Subdivision 6. Loading and Parking Requirements. At least one off-street
loading and unloading area shall be provided for each business establishment located
within a Commercial Zoning District. Off-street parking requirements for each use allowed
in a Commercial Zoning District shall be as follows:
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
280
(6-15-98)
e
e
e
August 8, 1998
TO: Mary Dold
Planning & Zoning
FROM: Ed Anderson
Fire Department
SUBJECT: Plan Review Comments for 601 Boone Avenue North
Listed below are the plan review comments for Tom Malik's Citgo gas station located at
601 Boone Avenue North.
1.) Provide fire lane signage and the required fire lane ident.ification for the curbs in
accordance with the City Ordinance. The location is as follows:
(a) The driveway located on the NW comer
(b) Along the curb line, west side of the building
(c) In front of the observation window for the gas dispensers
(d) Ten feet on both sides of the LP tank
2.) The existing (LP) liquefied petroleum tank shall be in compliance with the current
fire codes and standards (provide documentation).
3.) The new gas dispensers shall meet the requirement of the fire codes and standards.
If there are any questions, please contact me.
e
e
e
Memorandum to: Golden Valley Planning Commission
Date:
August 20, 1998
From:
Mary Oold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development
Subject:
Review of Attendance
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, the Chair is to review the attendance of the Commissioners in
February and August. Below you will find the attendance record from January through August 10, 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
ATTENDANCE FOR 1998
January through August10
:::::::::::::::::::::: ':::Gti:if1.e:~::: ::::;J:MiilS<m::: ::::Jc;3j;iSiler.:::::: ::::M:iit~~:::: ::::MeA~sr;::::: :::::::f:!~i:it~~:::::: ::::::::I?-1:at.8}f::::::j:::::::s~:m~j::::::"
i~ftiiiii~ti: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ ~: ~: ~ {: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~:~ { ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: : ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: } }~:~: ~: ~:~:} i: i: ~:~: ~ ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~:~: ~:}~: }i:i:~ ~? ?j: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:
::~~~::i:~ : :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~:~: :i:~:~:~:i:i:~:i:~:~:i:~:~: :~:~:~: ~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~: ~:~:~ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~ :~:~:~:~:~:~ '{:i:~:i:~:~:~:i:i:~:~:~:~:~: :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ :~:~:~:~:?~:~:i:?~:~:}~j
:':':':'~'2:":"" ........:it........ ..........1:<;)"........ .............~.1............. ...........1.cf......... .............~2............ ...........~.:f.......... ........Er~fEr.......r.....5..~.6.......
i~i~~ta4t : i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: i ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i j f j j t::~: i: j j j m j j j j ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i j i i ~: ~ ~:: ~ i i ~ ~ i ~ i ~ j ~ i i i i i i i i i i i ~ ~ ~: j: i: i i ~ ~ j i ~ i ~ ~ . m m tt: i J m j j j j t ~ i i i i i i i i ii ~: i ~:: i ~ i i i i i i i ~ i mm t: i j :::J::: Itj li i i i i i i::: ~ ~::::: ~ i::: ~ i i i i ~ i