Loading...
05-08-95 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 8, 1995 7:00 PM I. Approval of Minutes - April 24, 1995 Minutes Not Available II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (No. 66) Applicant: Dent Kraft Plus Inc., Applicant Address: 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To permit an auto body repair shop (paintless dent repair) within the Industrial Zoning District III. Comprehensive Plan - Housing Review (Information supplied by Kevin McAleese) IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, Community Standards Task Force V. Other Business - Sidewalk Committee Policy/Procedures - Discussion of Bus Tour for Planning Commission (details) VI. Adjournment ************************************************** * *AAA************************** The report for the proposed NSP composting site has not yet been completed. It will come before the Planning Commission at its June 12 meeting. --;. PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT . The Planning Commission is an advisory body,createdto advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will recomnend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the pro- posed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such propos a 15 are, and to permi t you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comnents become part of the record and wi.ll be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommenda- tion. in reaching its decision. T,o aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: L The Comission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommenda- tion from staff. Comission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and ansWer any questions from the Commission. 3,. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who . wish to speak to so indicate by raUing their hands. The Chair may set a time 1 imit for individual questions/c01llllents if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to Speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer pertod of time for. questions/comments. 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will deter- mine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially.. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of. the public hearing. the Conmission wi 11 discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. ....... o' . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7:06 PM. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -March 27. 1995 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 27, 1995 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amend Planned Unit Development Applicant: Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Address: Lot 1, Block 1, North Wirth 4th Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Dahlberg Commerce Center P.U.D. No. 61 Purpose: Amend P.U.D. No. 61 to add on a second lot on which will be constructed an office/warehouse Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development gave a brief summary of his staff report. He told the Commission that the HRA is the applicant because they own the land. Grow Biz International will be buying the property from the HRA once a development agreement has been worked out. Staff recommended amending P.U.D. No. 61, instead of creating a new PUD, because the two Grow Biz sites will be sharing driveways and parking. Mr. Grimes commented about the setbacks being proposed are the same as on the headquarter's site. He also talked about the campus atmosphere that Grow Biz will create through the landscaping and the use 0 similar materials for both buildings. Mr. Grimes talked briefly about the Grow Biz's interest in acquiring only a portion of the land that lies north of the railroad track. They feel that the upward grade, toward the west, would not meet their needs for parking and want only to purchase a portion of the property. Mr. Grimes commented that the owner to the west of this parcel may be interested in purchasing the remainder. Commissioner Johnson asked if there could be a potential problem with the remainder of the parcel being land-locked. Mr. Grimes commented that this issue will be addressed by the staff and City Attorney. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Page Two Commissioner Groger asked staff if the proposed site was still contaminated. Mr. Grimes commented that the property probably would never be 100% cleaned-up. City Planner, ~eth Knoblauch, stated that the PCA has given their "okay" for development of the site. Marlys Enger, Representative for Grow Biz International, gave a summary of what Grow Biz does. Tom Gerster, KKE Architects, reviewed building plans and materials. He talked about the master plan concept, landscaping and shared driveways. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Pat Lilja, 5308 St. Croix Avenue North, asked what Golden Valley's interest was in the outlot. Mark Grimes commented that the only use for the property would be for Grow Biz and/or the property to the west, Room and Board. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked if Grow Biz could use the entire site north of the tracks by terracing of the property. Tom Gerster commented that it would be impractical because of the 25 foot grade change. . Chair Prazak found the proposed split of the rear lot to be reasonable. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to amend the Dahlberg Commerce Center P.U.D. No. 61 to add on a second lot on which will be constructed an office/warehouse. Also, a condition for "proof of parking" be added to the permit. III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 1854 Toledo Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Change the use of the property located at 1854 Toledo Ave. No. from Single Family (Low Density) to Municipal -- Parks and Natural Areas. The property would become an extension of Scheid Park IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 1854 Toledo Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota . Request: Rezone the property located at 1854 Toledo Ave. No. from Single Family Residential to 1-4 Institutional (golf courses, parks, playgrounds, city offices and fire stations) . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Page Three Mark Grimes commented on the proposals to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and for the rezoning. He stated that the house was purchased in March because of the need for additional parking at the park. The house would be moved off the site, landscaping would be put in where the house was located and parking would be expanded to the east. Mr. Grimes talked about cars parking on the grassy areas near the parking lot and the "no parking" on Toledo Avenue. He said the purchase of the lot would provide for more parking in the park; that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposals will improve the park access. Commissioner Pentel asked about fencing the west side of the proposed parking lot and landscaping. Tom Klatt, Street/Park Superintendent, presented and discussed a planting scheme. Commissioner Prazak asked if the City was inquiring about purchasing the remaining residential home abutting Scheid Park. Mark Grimes commented that the City has no plans to purchase the home located at 1850 Toledo Avenue; if the owner decides to sell, the City may then look at purchasing the property. Commissioner Pentel asked about the parking lot design. Tom Klatt commented that the park would gain parking spaces and more green space since most of the lot would be landscaped. . Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Loretta Style, 1850 Toledo Avenue North, doesn't want to see an expanded parking lot located next to her property and feels there is sufficient parking located on and around the park. Ms. Style is also concerned about her property value. Lee Style, 1850 Toledo Avenue North, asked if there were no plans, why was the house purchased. He is concerned with children climbing over his mother's fence. He wanted to know if the City would put the house back on the market. Commissioner Lewis asked if they thought there was a parking problem. Lee Style commented that there is parking up and down the streets and Golden Valley Road and does not want parking lot next to his mother's lot. Karen Boehne, 1735 Toledo Avenue North, wanted to know how the City could buy property without notifying neighboring residents. She talked about the cost of creating more parking and landscaping and that the present parking lot is never full. Pat Lilja, 5308 St. Croix Avenue North, doesn't want to see more parking and feels there is not a need. Michael Eggert, 1851 Toledo Avenue North, would have liked to have seen a site plan available showing the landscaping and additional parking. . Commissioners Groger and Lewis asked Mr. Eggert if he saw a parking problem. Mr. Eggert responded no. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1995 Page Four Sharon Rackner, 1871 Toledo Avenue North, does not see a need for more parking. Mike Frederick, 1644 No. Lilac, sees a problem with the location of the basketball court and would like to see it moved to create additional access to the park for those walking. He is opposed to taking the house off the tax rolls. Mike Boehne, 1735 Toledo Avenue North, does not believe there is a parking problem. He thinks the basketball court should be moved away from the play ground. Pat Lilja, 5308 St. Croix Avenue North, wanted to know if is the intent to bring in more traffic to the park, then more parking is needed. He wanted to know what the residents could do to prevent the proposal. Chair Prazak commented that they would need to show the City Council that there is no need for parking. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Lewis commented that it appears that no additional parking is needed. She asked Mr. Grimes about the parking at Scheid Park. Mr. Grimes commented that according to the City's Park Department more parking is needed; and if there is a need, more parking is required on-site. He continued by saying that there must have been a parking problem at one time because of the "no parking" signs located on Toledo Avenue. Commissioner Johnson asked about parking at other City parks. Tom Klatt listed the parks and available parking on-site for those parks. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he was hearing mixed messages; the Park Department knows the needs of the park but the neighboring residents are saying something else. The Commission needs to consider the whole City not just those who live around Scheid Park but all those who may use the park. He is concerned about Mrs. Style becoming an "island" in the park but is not concerned about the parking lot issue. Commissioner Pentel is concerned with having the house located at 1850 Toledo Avenue becoming an island in the park. She commented that she has seen the parking lot full. Ms. Pentel is not in favor of the rezoning or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Groger commented that the parking lot is substandard, small and is concerned with cars being parked on the grass due to the fact that the lot is crowded, and is concerned with the play area being so close to the parking lot. He is in favor of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning. Mr. Groger stated that there is a need to improve the parking lot with curb and gutter and for extra parking spaces. Commissioner McAleese asked if the sale of the house was completed. Mark Grimes commented yes. Mr. McAleese also is not in favor of making the one house abutting the park an island. He commented that the neighborhood will bring to the attention of staff when there is a parking problem. He is not in favor of the proposals. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Page Five Commissioner Lewis stated that she could not vote in favor of the proposals because she doesn't feel there is a parking problem from what the residents have stated. Ms. Lewis commented that when a future parking problem exists, then the City should take action. Commissioner Johnson commented that she could not support the proposals and feels the timing for the expansion of the parking lot is not now. Chair Prazak opposes the proposals because there does not seem to be a parking problem at this time and does not want to see one residential lot remain as an island abutting the park. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Lewis and motion carried by a vote of 5-2 to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by the City to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map which would change the use of the property located at 1854 Toledo Avenue No. from Single Family (Low Density) to Municipal-- Parks and Natural Areas. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Lewis and motion carried by a vote of 5-2 to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by the City to rezone the property at 1854 Toledo Avenue No. from Single Family Residential to 1-4 Institutional. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Lewis and motion carried by a vote of 5-0 (2 commissioners abstained) to adopt the following specific findings: 1) Creating of an island leaving a single-family property in the midst of an institutional district is not in the best interest of the community; and 2) There is no current neighborhood perceived need of additional parking and the majority of the Planning Commission was not convinced of a need for additional parking. Commissioner McAleese wanted to go on record that it was not proven to him, with evidence, that a need existed for additional parking. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council. Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Standards Task Force Due to the late hour, no reports were given. VI. Other Business Composting in the Industrial Zoning District - Consideration of a Request by NSP to Develop a Compost Site at the Medicine Lake Substation (8200 10th Avenue North) Mark Grimes reviewed the materials that NSP submitted regarding composting at the NSP site in Golden Valley. Commissioner Kapsner had questions on how close the NSP property was to the residents to the north. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Page Six Commissioner Pentel stated that she would like to see a bigger plan as to what the site would look like along with other information before taking this issue under consideration. Commissioner McAleese asked if this proposal would need a conditional use permit or variance. Mark Grimes commented that a conditional use permit, nor variance are allowed. Staff would request an overall change to the zoning code which would allow composting in all industrial districts. Lou Howard, representative for NSP, commented that NSP would not present anything to the City that would make the City or NSP liable. Mr. Howard talked about the distance of the proposed site to the neighbors to the north. Chuck Donkers, representative for NSP, talked about the technical aspects regarding the site, Le. the materials to be used and how they work. Mr. Donkers also talked about the contamination factor and the process that NSP has to go through in order to recycle the soil. Commissioner Kapsner feels that this kind of composting of contaminated soils would work very well. He felt it would take quite a bit of work to convince a neighborhood that this kind of facility would be a good neighbor. . Chuck Donkers commented that NSP has information from MnDOT and other organizations that have tried composting contaminated soil that neighbors have taken it quite well. Jack Schutz, NSP Representative, talked about the need to compost contaminated soils. He also talked about the Golden Valley site being screened and because of the location it would be hard to see the site from anywhere. Chair Prazak commented that the proposal is sound enough to pursue but there is a need for education regarding this kind of composting. Mr. Prazak said he was reluctant in having Golden Valley being a pilot project. Commissioner Groger commented that the proposal is worth looking at. The site is secluded and NSP has very stringent guidelines to follow regarding the soils they can accept to compost and how they have to set up the compost site. Commissioner Pentel would like staff to investigate how other communities have handled contaminated soil composting. Commissioner McAleese asked staff to consider a time line to put more information together. The Commission could then review the additional information and make a decision to pursue the amendment to the City Code to allow composting in the Industrial District and pass it on to the City Council. Sidewalk Committee Policy/Procedures . This item was delayed to the May 8 Planning Commission meeting. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Page Seven Discussion of Bus Tour for Planning Commission The Commission and staff finalized meeting time and place. Staff will put together a map and materials for the tour. VII. Comprehensive Plan - Housing Review Commissioner McAleese handed out materials for the commission to review at the next meeting. VIII. Adjournment Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 10:20 PM. Jean Lewis, Secretary . . . , ~ -- MEMORANDUM Date: May 2, 1995 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Subject: Application for CUP to Operate an Auto Repair Facility in an Industrial Zoning District --710 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Dent Kraft Plus Inc., Applicant This is not the sort of auto repair facility that typically is considered for a permit in Golden Valley. As indicated in the applicant's narrative (attached), the service to be offered is highly specialized and the staff is small. Many customers will never even come to the site. The applicants are already using office space in the building at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South. Somehow, neither they nor the building's owners thought to call City Hall before the lease was signed, to learn what requirements the city has for auto repair facilities. the error was discovered before any garage operations began, and the applicants are now doing the actual repair work at other locations while they try to get through the permit process. The total leased area is approximately 2,500 square feet, most of which is garage space. The remainder of the 10,315 square foot building is used primarily for warehouse! manufacturing space by the owners, Jet Edge Corporation. There is also a second building (750 Pennsylvania) on the same site and in close proximity to the subject building. That building consists of 11,916 square feet, with about 7,000 square feet being used as office space for some of Jim Lupient's business interests and the rest as warehouse space for Jet Edge. There are several existing nonconformities around the site, which must be addressed by the BZA before any alteration of use can be permitted. The entire 710 building was supposed to be torn down in 1970, as part of a major reconstruction program, of which erecting the 750 building was to be the first stage. Expanded background information about the site is provided in a separate report (attached). One reason the owners did not call the City about special requirements for automotive uses is that the garage of the 710 building has been used for such purposes in the past. Unfortunately, that was back in the 1960's. Given the uncertain origins of the 710 building, the lack of information on file with regard to it, and the changing standards for structural and fire safety over time, staff have some concerns about whether the building is suitable for auto repair uses at this time. City Inspectors will be going through the building and will notify the owners and the applicants of what improvements may be necessary. At this time, staff would say that the nature and scope of the particular auto repair operation being proposed make it probably as "safe" as any use short of inert storage. . . . Dent Kraft - CUP No. 66 Page Two Factors for Consideration There are ten factors that must be considered in any application for Conditional Use Permit. Staff findings with regard to each factor in this case are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need. The proposed use meets the standard rule of thumb for demonstrating need, which is that the applicants have identified a market for their services. 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The plan map identifies the proposed site as an industrial area, and dent-banging is a use that is compatible with industrial uses. 3. Effect on Property Values. The extent of the proposed operation is quite limited, and could be expected to have a minimal impact at any suitably zoned location. At this location in particular, there are already other auto-related uses in close proximity. No adverse impact on adjacent property values is expected. 4. Impact of Traffic Generation. Again, due to the limited scope of business, no significant impact is expected. 5. Impact of Population or Density Increases. This proposal involves no new con- struction, so the density of development will not increase. With a total employment of only four, and 75% of all business either conducted off site or in vehicles brought to the site by employees, there will be no appreciable increase in.the daytime population of the area. 6. Increase in Noise Levels. Staff have not been able to obtain any meaningful comparisons between the noise that might be expected from the proposed use and other types of noise that are more familiar. However, assurance has been given that the "tapping sound would not be heard outside of the building." On the strength of this, no significant noise impact is expected. 7. Odors. Dust, Smoke. Gas. or Vibration. There will be no welding or painting involved in the proposed use, and the vehicles do not need to have their engines running. No significant impact is expected. 8. Flies. Rats. Other Animals or Vermin. No such critters are expected to be attracted by the type of work that will be done. . . . -- Dent Kraft -- CUP No. 66 Page Three 9. Visual Appearance. All work will be done inside. There will be no outside storage of supplies, and the types of vehicles to be worked on will not be of the rusty hulk variety. Therefore, the presence of the proposed use is not expected to signifi- cantly alter the appearance of the site. The building itself was referred to by its owner as "dilapidated" 25 years ago, and city records do not indicate any substantial renovation since then. Because putting a conditional use into the building constitutes an alteration to a nonconforming property, the owners will have to go before the BZA; staff are hoping that some site improvements will be required in the course of obtaining the necessary variances. 10. Other Impacts. Because the proposed use will be so limited, it is difficult to envision how it could possibly have any significant effect on the general public health, safety, or "'(elfare. Staff do have concerns about the existing site nonconformities, structural adequacy, and poor site appearance, but for the most part those are outside of the scope of conditional use permit considerations. As already indicated, the BZA will be dealing with the issuance of variances, and the conditional use cannot be approved without BZA clearance. City building inspectors will see to it that the portion of the building affected by the conditional use meets all applicable building and fire code requirements and that the entire structure meets basic requirements. Because the proposed use is a minimal part of the overall site use, and will have virtually no impact on the exterior site appearance, there is not much opportunity to tie any visual improvements into the CUP permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a CUP to operate an auto repair business at 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The following conditions are recommended for inclusion in the permit: 1. There shall be no painting, sanding, welding, or engine repair undertaken as part of this conditional use. 2. All dent repair shall be conducted in a designated vehicle work area within the garage, and the overhead door shall be kept closed except when vehicles enter or leave. 3. The garage shall contain not more than three vehicle work areas plus not more than one vehicle washing station, as shown on the attached floor plan which shall be considered part of the official permit. 4. There shall be no more than six customer vehicles on the site at any given time, with no more than three of those customer vehicles being outside of the garage. . . . -- Dent Kraft -- CUP No. 66 Page Four 5. There shall be no tow truck or other company vehicle used in conjunction with this conditional use unless such vehicle is also the normal mode of transportation for one of the company employees. 6. With authorization from the BZA, and provided that all other conditions of this permit continue to be met, the normal parking requirement for auto repair service shall be waived in favor of a lesser requirement which shall be seven outside parking spaces for this conditional use. 7. Any vehicles left on the site during non-business hours shall be stored inside the garage. 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 conditional use permit. EAK:mkd Attachments: Location Map Site Map Floor Plan Applicant's Narrative Background Research: Nonconformities on 710-750 Pennsylvania Avenue South . r--4- I 1- Ill" t I I I I I I , :- .\ ~ '-:... Nj,' - I,.'t. ,;,.-~;" ,.:.... .~>: :~~: ~";.;;. '. r\ h ':J I 1-\.... ...' J,"'... '~ G"'-; -.;!.'i~ _ I': .If" \0' .;.'. ",. ~ ~ ',. : to '.'I I -I::: ~t .....;;. ~r. .' ..... ::.110'0: .....- ~ ~- ~.,:;;" -" . . I .V!'. 0, .~. ! ~ .. " ;'/6 ." 'f I II . . ...J. i~I::~':j-':'-'~ . 1; -:: !:,:'. I ~:::~ I . .'.~ .. .. ;) . I L t: r w ... .. .. , - - ::: ~ - ii j;l- LAND ,10' . ~'-1I1 -.... _\ I! IJ . I ~:: ,r:";. I,' .' ~ :~. .) . .. ~ "':~. .t !'=~:~ - i ~ ; ~ ~ . ~ ; i: 1.- t ~ ~-' ';' ~:REG; ;.J . ' .:. ;--~.::f .. ~ I I' . I' ,,' \ t.o . .~.:;!,;;'-.:L ::~r.~~'~' TS~.~' :. " ...... 1- -.. .-, ;; '~ ~... - .. ~.... 1;- ~ S.~ ..~ , " l . '" . . !'f' . . , Ie .,: (~ .. .....:JI ,,'1 " \.4. .. '. .. . ) · ('./,,/ f '; _L.l :i '/6'&11 Ii '1 6D :' v' .. .. . . .. .. ~ ... .. , .. .; , I I - - .I . I' . .... t ! i I .. .... '-.;.i:)>'.: .:.. ~;., '.' i .. .:<.:~ :~~,,: ,'" o. _ _10 .. ~ . ." I ..... .. .-.. .. ! '. .: ~:: ... ..~.. - .:.~. I. f I:' l\. '" ~ :..t.. \ .. .:: '; ~ 1~~1:..:.. ~...' .... ~"1'':''. ~ .~.~ ~-;j~': :. ~:'. ,:...; '~'. -.' a.1. I .--t. - ~ - ~ '- ' )> 'J:~ ~ ..'PJ:;.'; C".:"~ t. 't':.f:::' :.. , ~ ~ . .. .. . .. s. " . :". .., ....., . ..r'-:.:~.:'': :~ . ..-1-..- ..--.-...- ..- ..-..-.- ~' SIGN .30' CURB I CUT = \ \ " "'-. \ I 61 I \ 30' CURB : CUT \ \ ", r-~ I L-- I ~- I I +---- II r-- _.J \.---- SIGN I" 19. '01 'N : .{ I I I I i--+ 9':0" b . ~ N ; I i 71 ! ' = '''F==:~=~=;==f=''~=~=~\==~~--~~ \' t \ . , . ' , /\ "9 ' " \ . ~ ' . ",,:.~ , , . '. ; \ \ \ \ \ r',/ ',' ;' \ . " ' tV' ',~ ~ \ . ' '. . " ;/ -----r;CURB . CUT 10 - i' 8\\ . ' ~ . . ' _--L----.....-i- --.--..- -.' - ~:=.~-=~.-:...~ / \ ' .' i ; . , ' , " ,"";'\' rAT_H. ___J_-_.~_.~ .. .' " - -" f .- I i f 11"-'.-"-" -.. -.. -.. -.. \,. . . I I I I I I I I I i . .w I> j<( i::; IZ '<( I> !-I 1>- ICJ) .z IZ IW Ie.. I I I SITE DATA 750 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SOUTH 7,Oon sa FI. OFFICE SPACE 1/250 sa. FT 5,Oon SO.FT. WAREHOUSE SPACE 11500 sa FT TOTAl NUMBER OF SPACE REOUlRED TOTAl NUMBER OF SPACE PROVIDED ..28 SPACES -10 SPACES -38 SPACES -49 SPACES 710 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SOUTH 1.0on sa FI. OFFICE SPACE 1/250 sa FT 9,000 SOFT, WAREHOUSE SPACE 1/500 sa. FT TOTAl NUMBER OF SPACE REQUIRED TOTAl NUMBER OF SPACE PROVIDED TOTAl ON BOTH SITES HlC RATIO 4/100 Hie PROVIDED -4 SPACES -18 SPACES -22 SPACES -2SSPACES "., SPACE S -4 SPACES -4 SPACES No+e.. ~o,., ~+;!...#: +he. propo5e..d. r~\)Ir-err1Q.f"\+ eo,.. #u.. 1..,500 r;,..l. A v +0 r-ep"'"' Ir- c...r e.A. ,';) 5 (. v E!.r\ (:1') pl<r k I ....~ ~ r{....~ I 'IN ~ \ C. t.-. wovlcl e...l+e.r +he. <:'A..I(.....I,,+'o, ShO'Nn A bO\le. -+.0.... +h~ ~ \ 0 bu I I d ' n '1 . PARKING PLAN SCALE 1" =40'-0" NORTH . . 43'-0" o TYP. ~:' :<20' WORK STALL .----~ ~----------------- ~~-------------- SHOP ARE~ -0 2 ~ Q;o ,") ~ ~ ,~ .t=: BF.EAK ROOM ~---------------:~ ('oJ 18'.8" ~ PROPOSED FLAMMABLE TRAP LOCATION \ ~ 1lJWl.~~~1 (I \y- q N N 12'X10' O.H. DOOR i i 17'-2112" WAiTING I I I Nl ::: , - I I . ::r.l <'-.II !4C" H,G!-; :.:~ ','"::i'l , I I I O~FICE AREA DENT KRAFT \::;~ 710 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. S. \~ GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA (612)868-DENT FAX (612)546-8803 \ \, / ;' /1 .'. " / ". .. "" \ .;t' '..- ", /~ / . ( -, 'i r- ki_~ Om ~ L: ---"= \ \ '-....... LOBBY \"'-. SHOP AREA 2152 sa, FT. OFFICE AREA 512 sa.FT. APPROX. TOTAL 2644 sa, FT *- NA/2I2../1 /1 ~/c - . . . Paintless dent repair is the removal of minor dings and dents (hail damage, parking lot etc.) without using conventional body shop methods or hazardous materials. Working with specially made hand tools and mallets, Dent Kraft Plus removes dents by applying pressure from behind the dent to restore the panel to its origional condition without damaging the paint. Because there is no damage to the origional paint, there is no need for painting making this a very simple procedure usually taking less than one hour. You can actually wait while your car is being repaired. On the average, we work on 250 cars per month. Approximately 25% are retail customers, usually scheduled so that two would not be in at the same time. Another 25% would be cars that we pick up from a customer or dealership, leaving our personal car with that party until the repairs have been made. The other 50% of the cars we work on are done at the dealership or customers house, work etc. All we need to function is: Enough space for a few cars, a drain for occasionally washing cars, a small office and bathroom, enough parking for four employee cars and an occasional customer. Dent Kraft Plus Emolovees/Vehicles There are 4 employees each with one vehicle. There are no tow trucks. No vehicles would be scheduled to be left overnight. Expanded noise discussion Noise level is very low. Tapping sound would not be heard outside of building. Re: Nonconformities on 710-750 Pennsylvania Avenue South . Some background is necessary in order to understand why the subject property is in its current state. The exact origin of the 710 Pennsylvania building is a mystery. The City's 1945 aerial photograph shows the site as vacant land. The earliest building permit on file is from 1954, and it is for the "alteration of an existing building." There is a permit for an addition in 1957, but the City's 1956 aerial photograph shows what appears to be an addition being constructed in that year, too. There was a final permit for an addition in 1961. The two permitted additions, plus the building outline as shown on the 1956 aerial, do not add up to the building size and shape as it exists today. Clearly, there was some unsupervised construction going on in the building's early years. The Possis Company acquired the 710 building in the 1960's, along with the buildings to the north (700 Pennsylvania), the south (800 Pennsylvania-now gone), and the west (825 Rhode Island). In 1969, Possis came in with an ambitious building plan to clean up the various properties and provide the company with attractive, expanded quarters. This plan required several official approvals. . First, the company wanted to combine and redivide its several parcels into two lots, one facing Pennsylvania and the other facing Rhode Island; their joint property line was shifted forty-five (45) feet west at its north end, to provide additional parking room on the easterly lot. The Council approved this new, two lot arrangement through the "waiver of platting" process. The creation of a single lot along Pennsylvania resulted in three buildings existing on one lot in violation of City Code. However, the Possis plan called for removal of the 710 and 800 buildings, which one company communication referred to as being "dilapidated". The 700 building at laurel and Pennsylvania would remain and be joined to newly constructed expansion space of several times its original size. For reasons not explained in the record, Possis wanted to begin the new construction at the south end of the lot rather than immediately adjacent to the 700 building. Thus, even with the demolition of the two dilapidated buildings, there would for a time be two separate buildings on t~e lot in violation of City Code. The matter was referred to the BZA. In December of 1969, the temporary presence of two buildings on a lot was approved. The minutes indicate that the code waiver being granted would apply only to "the section of building which when completed will become a single structure." Unfortunately, no deadline was given for when the final, connecting link would have to be constructed. Neither the BZA, nor the Council in granting the earlier- mentioned waiver of platting, specified when the two dilapidated buildingswould have to be demolished. . The council subsequently approved a building permit for the first stage of the new construction. This would become the 750 Pennsylvania building that exists on the property today. Again the council did not specify a demolition deadline for 710 and 800 Pennsylvania. The building inspector issued the permit "subject to demolition of 800 . . . -- . Page Two Pennsylvania", but for some reason did not mention 710. The 800 building was duly demolished before construction began on the 750 building. One final event happened in mid-1970 to complete the picture. This time, there was no city approval. Somehow, by the time the new lot descriptions completed the county recording process, the parcel containing the 700 Pennsylvania building had been separated back out of what was supposed to be the single, easterly lot. That parcel and building remain separate, and nonconforming, to this day. The never-demolished 710 building shares a second lot with the newer 750 building, which somehow never got beyond its original construction stage. Neither of these buildings could come close to meeting setback requirements if the lot were to be split back into its underlying parcels, so they are stuck with each other. Although the BZA did approve two buildings on a lot, it is clear from the record that the currently existing conditions were not what the BZA contemplated at the time of approval. Therefore, the 1969 waiver is not valid. The two buildings are nonconforming unless the BZA finds reason to grant a waiver for the conditions that exist today. There are other nonconformities on the property as well. The 750 building is marginally in violation of its 35 foot required street setback. The parking area in front of 710 is significantly in violation of the 35 foot setback. The southernmost driveway is in violation of the ten foot side setback, and the curb cut is almost certainly too close to the property line. None of the parking area has the required concrete curb and gutter. There are pavement and/or use linkages with both the parcel to the north and the parcel to the west. At the time of writing of this report,. it is not known whether the two buildings meet requirements for amount of parking. . At this time, Possis is looking at options for leasing or selling various parts of the company's holdings. Staff had been discussing a proposal to further subdivide the 700 parcel, but the deal fell through in part because of the expense involved in curing the nonconformities on that site. Auto dealership owner Jim Lupient recently moved some of his corporate offices into a large portion of the 800 building; since that did not involve a change in use, it did not trigger the City's "no alteration" clause with regard to nonconforming uses or properties. Now there is a request for a conditional use permit to operate a vehicle dent-repair business out of a quarter of the 710 building; that request does involve an alteration to the use of this nonconforming property, and therefore the BZA is being called upon to address the nonconformities.