Loading...
08-26-85 PC Agenda � , • �. GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION __ August 26, 1985 � 6:30 P.M. Golden Valley Health Center Board Room 4101 Golden Valley Road AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 8, 1985 II. TOUR OF GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER III. MEETING WITH HEALTH CENTRAL REPRESENTATIVE IV. REPORT ON BZA MEETINGS - JULY 9 and AUGUST 13, 1985 V. REPORT ON HRA MEETINGS - JULY 9 and AUGUST 13, 1985 VI. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS - JULY 16, AUGUST 6, AND � AUGUST 20, 1985 � � , . 9 MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION � July 8, 1985 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman Prazak called the meeting to order at 7:17 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt, Prazak and Russell . Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Alda Peikert, City Planner; and Gloria Anderson, Planning Secretary. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1985 It was moved by Commissioner Kapsner, seconded by Commissioner Lewis, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 24, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN APPLICANT: John 6. Goodman LOCATION: 5100 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #49 - Valley Village 2nd Addition , Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked staff for their report. City Planner Peikert reviewed the request for PUD #49 and indicated that staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval . Planning Commissioners had several questions regarding the conditions of approval which were answered by City Planner Peikert. Mr. Ross Fefercorn of Omni Shelter Incorporated was present to represent the proponent. Mr. Fefercorn commended staff for their review of the proposal . He stated that they had done� a market analysis of the property and felt the best use of the land was for apartments. They would like to keep open the option for rental or condominiums. Mr. Fefercorn indicated they would prefer rental apartments but in any case would probably set up condominium documents as it might be converted at a later date. Mr. Fefercorn went on to describe the proposal indicating where retaining walls would be located to preserve the large trees and in the area of the cul-de-sac. He also stated they would move the sewer line in order to eliminate the need for more extensive retaining wall construction. Mr. Fefercorn indicated that the _street would be 30 feet wide, which is wider than most privately owned streets, and would allow for parking along one side of the street. He also explained that surface water drainage would be directed between the buildings into sedimentation basins which would have skimmer devices to prevent contaminated water from entering Bassett Creek. . . , • " Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1985 ' Page 2 r Commissioner Leppik asked if the extra runoff would affect the water level of Bassett Creek. Mr. Fefercorn stated it would not and that the purpose of the sedimentation basins was to hold the runoff so it would percolate into the ground or discharge slowly into the creek and that the plan had been approved by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Commissioner Leppik also asked how much of a drop off would be between the buildings and the creek. Mr. Fefercorn indicated there would be an eight foot gradual drop between the lower floor of the buildings and the creek. Commissioner Leppik asked if the units would be market rate and Mr. Fefercorn indicated that they would be. Commissioner Russell asked if all entrances were from the garages. Mr. Fefercorn explained the entrances from the garages into a hall and then into the individual units. Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, the informal public hearing was closed. Chairman Prazak stated he felt it was an attractive and positive development and that the proponent was taking advantage of a difficult site. Commissioner Leppik questioned that fact there was only one access to the site and that the City usually required two access points. iCity Planner Peikert explained the long driveway and cul-de-sac and that the site topography was such that there was no other way to achieve an access. She indicated that the Fire Marshal feels there are enough amenities built in so that it will be acceptable. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Kapsner and unanimously carried to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Design P1an for PUD #49, Valley Village 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: . 1. Plans for relocation of the existing City sanitary sewer line along the western boundary of the site onto the adjacent property to the west shall be prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and shall be approved by the City Engineer, the Minnesota State Board of Health and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 2. Relocation of the existing City sanitary sewer line shall be at developer expense. 3. _ A typical section illustrating the skimmer device proposed for sedi- mentation basins shall be prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. The proponent shall provide a narrative explanation of provisions for maintenance of the skimmer device or devices to the satisfaction of � the City Engineer. . . , ' Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1985 ' Page 3 � 4. The option requested in the application cover letter for replacement of the six individual sedimentation basins with an underground storm sewer system to a single catch basin is preferable to the City Engineer and shall be allowable provided proposed plans meet the approval of the City Engineer. 5. Plans for sanitary sewer connection from the proposed development to the existing sanitary sewer lift station, including the creek crossing, shall be prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. 6. There shall be no structure allowed in the floodplain, and cross sections shall be revised to verify elimination of structures below the flood elevation of 837. . 7. The proponent shall dedicate to the City of Golden Valley, either by means of replatting of the property or by means of separate document, a revised drainage and flowage easement over all area below the flood elevation of 837 following revision of contours to accommodate the proposed development. Any current easement area no longer below flood elevation with the proposed development shall be vacated. 8. The proponent shall dedicate to the City of Golden Valley, either by means of replatting of the property or by means of separate document, a 15 foot utility easement in the location of the relocated City • sanitary sewer line on the lot to the west of the subject lot. The easement in the current location of the sanitary sewer line shall be vacated. 9. The developer shall implement erosion control measures during con- struction in accordance with a plan approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and by the City Engineer. 10. The cul-de-sac at the end of the access drive shall be expanded to a radius up to 45 feet as indicated with a dashed line on the proposed site plan and shall have a maximum width extension eliminating the corner from the cul-de-sac into the access drive. The cross section in the location of the cul-de-sac shall be revised to illustrate the expanded cul-de-sac width and revised retaining wall design. 11. "No Parking" signs shall be posted around the cul-de-sac and along the extension from the cul-de-sac on the west side of the access drive. 12. Fire lanes shall be posted at the entrances to each building. 13. _ The option requested in the application cover letter of marketing the development as a rental project as opposed to a condominium project is allowable subject to provision of handicapped accessible units as re- quired by the Uniform Building Code for rental projects. • � Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1985 � Page 4 � 14. Separation walls between units shall be provided as recommended by the City Building Department. 15. If the condominium option is utilized, a homeowners association agreement shall be submitted with the PUD General Plan of Development and shall meet the approval of the City Attorney. 16. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the PUD General Plan of Development and shall conform to the City Landscape Standards and to recommendations of the Building Board of Review. 17. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Regulations and to recommenda- � tions of the City Building Tnspector. 18. The development shall conform to all requirements and recommendations of the City Fire Marshal , City Building Inspector and City Engineer. III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Midas Muffler LOCATION: 2520 Winnetka Avenue North � REQUEST: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Midas Muffler Shop in a Commercial Zoning District Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and a summary of the staff report was given by City Planner Peikert who also indicated that staff recommends approval of the Midas Muffler Shop operation with standard conditions. Chairman Prazak asked if the standard conditions would include any provisions for floor drainage so that oil does not get into the sanitary sewer system. City Planner Peikert stated that at the time the proponent submits their plans for the new construction, both the City Fire Marshal and City Building Inspector would look at the floor drainage plan. Director Grimes also indicated that it would have to meet requirements of the Metropolitan Waste Control . The proponent, Mr. Steve Hendrickson, was present to explain his proposal . He stated that he owned four other Midas Muffler shops in the western suburbs and had been looking for a location in Golden Valley for some time and felt this would be a good location. Mr. Hendrickson stated that all his other stores were well maintained and did not have junk cars, etc. sitting outside the buildings. He also stated there would be no engine overhauls, body work or painting done at this location. Mr. Hendrickson went on to explain that the existing portion of the building � would be used for an auto tune up/quick oil change service and the new construction would house the Midas Muffler Shop. r Planning Commission Minutes , July 8, 1985 Page 5 � Mr. Hendrickson stated that the seven-foot rear yard setback to parking shown on the proposed site plan retains the landscaping, parking and curb line as they currently exist. Mr. Hendrickson questioned the necessity for obtaining a variance or moving the curb and asphalt to a setback distance of ten feet in view of the fact that he is maintaining the existing situation. Ms. Peikert explained that the seven-foot setback shown on the proposed site plan is non- conforming and that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits expansion of a nonconforming structure. Therefore, at the time of construction of the proposed building addition for the Midas Muffler Shop, it would be necessary to obtain a variance or to remove three feet of the existing parking area. Ms. Peikert stated that there did not appear to be justification for a variance, but that in view of the fact that the curb line shown on the site plan is already existing, the possibility of obtaining a variance could be discussed further with staff. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Hendrickson if he was the current owner of this property. Mr. Hendrickson responded that he was purchasing the property but is delaying the closing until a conditional use permit is obtained. Commissioner Russell had questions regarding the signs for Midas Muffler and the proponent stated they would work within the constraints of the City's sign regulations. Commissioner Lewis asked what the hours of operation would be and Mr. Hendrickson stated they are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and probably � 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and they would not be open on Sundays. Chairman Prazak open the informal public hearing. Mr. Joe Miller, owner of the service station north of the subject property, stated he felt there were enough service stations in Golden Valley and that the property should remain as as a restaurant. Mr. Miller stated that this type of business would be detrimental to the restaurants in the area and felt that the Planning Commission should deny the request for a auto tune up/quick oil change operation and Midas Muffler Shop at this location. Commissioner McAleese remarked that the surrounding property owners had been notified of this hearing and that if they had objections to the auto tune up/quick oil change operation and Midas Muffler Shop at this location, they would be at this hearing. Commissioner McAleese pointed out that the Commissions review of a Conditional Use Permit request is limited to making a decision primarily by considering the ten factors set forth in Chapter 20.03 of the Zoning Code. Cha�rman Prazak reviewed the ten findings set forth in the staff report and closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Leppik stated she thought that if the adjacent restaurant owners felt this type of business would be a problem, they would have been at the meeting, and also, that it is not the Commission's position to decide if this � business would provide undue competition for other businesses in the area. ' Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1985 ' Page 6 � Chairman Prazak felt that if this pro erty was oin to be sold and used as a P 9 9 restaurant, it would have been done some time ago. Commissioner Russell stated the persons leaving this property cannot make a left turn and that this type of business would create less traffic than a restaurant would. Commissioner Kapsner stated that he liked the proposal and that vacant build- ings are a detriment to other businesses in the area. Commissioner Lewis also felt it would give the area a face lift. It was moved by Commissioner Kapsner, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Midas Muffler shop and tune up/quick oil change facility at 2520 Winnetka Avenue North in a Commercial Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in conformance with the Site Plan prepared by Bruce W. Schmitt and Associates, dated May 28, 1985 and revised June 18, 1985, shall be conditional upon granting of a waiver of rear yard setback to parking by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or upon revision of the Site Plan to conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. � 2. There shall be no automobile engine overhauls, body work or painting conducted on the site. 3. Renovation and new construction exterior materials shall conform to the recommendations of the Building Board of Review (BBR). 4. Landscaping shall conform to the City Landscape Standards and to the recommendations of the Building Board of Review (BBR). - 5. There shall be concrete curb separation of parking and drive from landscaped areas. 6. There shall be no outside display or storage of materials or refuse. 7. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Regulations and approval of the City Building Inspector. 8. The construction and operation shall conform to all requirements and recommendations of the City Building Inspector and City Fire Marshal . 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. • � Planning Commission Minutes , July 8, 1985 ', ' Page 7 � IV. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING N A 0 M E N D M E N T S T O T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item. Director Grimes gave a review of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 7700 Wayzata Boulevard and 1245-1411 North Lilac Drive. After a brief discussion by the Planning Commissioners, Chairman Prazak opened the formal public hearing. The following residents spoke against the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 7700 Wayzata Boulevard as they do not want an office building on this property and felt it would devaluate their residential property and increase the traffic in the area: Mr. Lyle Larson, 830 Rhode Island Avenue South Mrs. Jennie Mattson, 732 Rhode Island Avenue South Mr. Nathan Bailey, 107 North Turners Crossroad Mrs. John Schroth, 843 Winnetka Avenue South The public hearing was closed. A short discussion by the Planning Commissioners indicated they felt the best and most appropriate use of this property would be for business and profes- sional offices rather than residential . � It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt and carried unanimously to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation from Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District for the property located at 7700 Wayzata Boulevard. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Prazak for comments on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 1245-1411 North Lilac Drive. Hearing and seeing no one, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner Russell , seconded by Commissioner Kapsner and carried unanimously to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation from the Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District for the property located at 1245-1411 North Lilac Drive. City Planner Peikert reviewed new legislation regarding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 2, 1985 Comraissioner Kapsner represented the Planning Commission at the July 2, 1985 meeting of the City Council and provided the Commission with a report. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. � Gary Prazak, Chairman ' Linda McCracken-Hunt, Secretary August 21, 1985 � T0: Members of the Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Tour and Meeting with Officials of Golden Valley Health Center at the Golden Valley Health Center In order to begin the comprehensive planning process, the Planning Commission decided it would be best to first meet with the owners of properties that would be studied. Up until this time, I have not had particularly good luck in set- ting up meetings due to summer vacation schedules. However, I have now set up a meeting with the owners of the Golden Valley Health Center to discuss the future planning for the property. The owner of the Golden Valley Health Center is Health Central , Inc. The tour and meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. on Monday, August 26. The tour will be given by the Director of the Health Center, Steve Camber. The Planning Commission should meet in the Board Room (located across from the food service area on the lower level of the Administration Building) at 6:30 P.M. After the . tour, Barbara Cox, Vice President of Planning for Health Central , and Steve Camber will meet in the Board Room at the Health Center to discuss the future planning and ideas for the Golden Valley Health Center. I believe that this meeting is a good opportunity for the Planning Commission to have questions answered about' the owner's thoughts on the development poten- tial of the site. This is particularly important because Health Central is a relatively new owner of the property. The following are issues that may be of concern: . a) Access to the site: Currently there is only one access to the site from Golden Valley Road. Too much development in the area could over- load that access and traffic on Golden Valley Road. The traffic on Golden Valley Road has been a discussion item when the former hospital property was discussed. b) The possibility of a second access to the property from Wirth Parkway or Highway 55 through the Northwirth (Graco and Mortenson) Development: Discussion has gone on in the past about getting a second access to re- lieve the Golden Valley Road access. Up to now, the Minneapolis Park Board has said no. c) Public access to Sweeney Lake: There may be some benefit for gaining public access to Sweeney Lake close to Golden Valley Road. I know there may be some objection from the property owners along Sweeney � Lake. Access could be limited to canoes or non-motorized boats. e , ' . • Members of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � August 21, 1985 Page 2 d) Density of development and proposed uses: At the present time, the PUD regulating the area is for institutional uses only at a very low density. How would another type of use effect traffic, access, etc? In addition, this property will be difficult to develop at a higher density due to the existing topography. e) Relationship with the Courage Center and Minneapo7is Clinic: These two institutions are a part of the PUD. Any additional development would have to take these institutions into consideration. � � � . . � . . � � � � � �� � ��'�, �o � C�olden Valley Health Cent �-�� . o° � � �',��j-� Institutional Planned Unit Development - � ,�—' _ �; ,�a� -- - -�'�- , � � � n�.�vanrers _ r�� � . ,�� �nreaoc�: : V .f�, i� ilV1E5:,73 __ /��f� Cr ��/ �mc0�W�7�Eb ' _ .i+ lJ � _ ' � � Q ; �� �o AhLr��° T -...1 _ _,�- ,� _ l - . _. � � � ' � i J+• __ 3--' �� � �`, i Development Plan ��io' � ` +�, � � � _�,;. , 'p• ; l:v�' ----� , C '� �' �% r O,,^=- '��,�__ '� � - : �ftiuBE-�., " _ =° � - ���ueF.wc ��t ° �p� � OPEN SPACE "� _ �' �PweKri�'�; � , ;.,;.v � ��%;� ;� �. ,; �i g�'�-- i �/ >.�s�:.-� � r� — '. ��/� \`' / : i i�;� - �= , �� - - �� � �. n/ . ,c �-. � -$`, �, ��,�- � / /� - ;a \\ �` `. � � ��• � C _ ^ ', .I,; w � .o e � �� 71 — 1 � � � ..$ "�=� - ,. • . ;" atat��aee ;�� .� ':' � i �B � I� �' ;� , :' �! �. a - ' s...e,n t.k. -------- � �� '�o. . ottt '� � .�`` fYw�QJJ � . ..1 Y�f'i.�' �i/� . �� � � ` • , ��.�� � L.Y� � � I \.t' / BL�IY�I�T��L ''�, . �", I � O / _ ��� � .��` ,I �.�\ :{�1,}� 'I\ .nl ,� � �- - -.��/� � � �� � � \ � ) / ����.• I / 1 ��'. / 'MI ^x /. �. \ -- " Nr��ci�o �� D[�AL CABE �r / / �, K o' ' � �1LITY"._ � ,� y. / ' ��; / pd � ,� '� � ��ti� � o r / . ME iCAL CARE o ''l � , , "t�- �� I �;'/-�� _ AC1Ll'iY /I�� • ;� � O� � , : 1r� � .O �V � ., �\�� �Y. i ; ,v� T� �.k. ,. .�0 CTIV$ �� • �� -. 'Q� C� EEC@EAT1 AL � ' , n�rm, r` �. . ' , ., � , . � /" f`�J 1 I >�\�� ' � s � - , _� � i , �,� � ; � v�. P . �, .. ' iq�', _ • , � ( OP N$PA�tJ •I , � _ / 11 OPE11I A ;�� -�� ^� � j i � =% , ` \�_�� ' i �,,. �� s � _ t t ,•/ op � l i , - � �� L'.i r �' ' ' ° � I l � �. �; �" � :� .<e " ' i '`: ---„ 4 � /. /� , ' J_� �'�" ? � - �"� O "��-__ �4t� �R�lreC _ ������.�� / � -- -w- `\\\�`�I �/-�\ y� � „'ii/,f„/!. ,:✓ ^„ f b — O,r �y.� .� ( �. � /��'T f � ! ,� �r` . � i i \ �j.a►`"'�.vi.'.. �,.,1���`���: .—�( � � Figure 1 • July 17, 1985 T0: Members of the Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Cancellation of July 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting I have spoken with Chairman Prazak about the agenda for the July 22, 1985 meeting. It was determined that it would be best to cancel the meeting because there are no public hearings scheduled and the staff is not prepared to begin discussions on various comprehensive planning matters. As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting, the City Council prefers that the Planning Commission not begin studies of the Golden Valley Lutheran College site at this time as per advice from the City Attorney. However, I will be setting up a meeting with the yet to be chosen real estate broker to be hired by the College as soon as possible. As of yesterday, the College had not yet chosen a broker. I was assured by the College's legal counsel that I would be informed as soon as possible regarding the broker's name in order that I may set up an appointment. I will keep the Planning Commission informed of this • future meeting. Over the past couple weeks I have tried to get in contact with a Vice President of Health Resources to discuss the possibility of someone from that organiza- tion to speak to the Planning Commission about development plans. I would like to set up this meeting and discussion for one of the Planning Commission meetings in August and will keep you informed. The staff has invited a representative of the League of Women Voters to the September 23, 1985 meeting to discuss the results of their survey on accessory housing. This will help the Commission's effort in the review of the Housing Plan. •