Loading...
03-13-95 PC Minutesa Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 13, 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 Vice-Chair Johnson at 7:05 PM. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, Pentel and Prazak; absent was McAleese. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary. Approval of Minutes -February 27, 1995 MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 27, 1995 minutes with the following additions: Page 4, Paragraph 8, add all conditions under the motion to make it more readable. They are as follows: The revised site plans dated 2/22/95 (reflecting the revised "Option A") submitted by RLK Associates Ltd. become a part of the PUD approval. 2. The property shall be legally platted and recorded, with the designation "P.U.D. No. 68" to be a part of the plat's title. 3. The "Declaration of Easements, Restrictions and Real Covenants" be attached to the PUD Permit. 4. JLO agrees to pay for the upgrade necessary to Market Street and to pay its fair share for the signal. construction at Louisiana Avenue and Market Street. 5. No "Certificate of Occupancy" may be issued by the City to any of the four buildings until after the road and signal work are completed to the satisfac- tion of the City Engineer. 6. The shared pylon sign may exceed the normal pylon sign height if it can be shown it cannot be seen from I-394 if not raised. The height shall be the minimum needed for I-394 visibility. All other signage on the site must meet the requirements of the sign code. The shared pylon sign cannot exceed 260 sq.ft. in area. 7. The Jiffy Lube car wash may be used by Jiffy Lube customers only. 8. The outside trash containers will be screened with similar material being used on the stores they will be serving. - Page 5, Paragraph 6 (under "Other Business") add the following to the end of the first sentence: ... and similar problems. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . March 13, 1995 Page Two II. Informal Public Hearing -Amendment (No. 4) to Pondwood Office Park P.U.D. No. 28 Applicant: Pondwood Associates (Gerald Mundt) Address: 4959, 4969 AND 4979 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: To connect the buildings located at 4959 and 4969. The enclosed connected area would be 605 sq.ft. in area. Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of his report to the Commissioners dated March 8 commenting that after reviewing the files. he became aware of a condition in the 3rd amendment which said no more development would be allowed on this site. Mr. Grimes stated he called Mr. Mundt to talked about this condition and was told by Mr. Mundt that he wanted to proceed with the hearings. Mr. Grimes said he was recommending against the 4th amendment. Commissioner Prazak asked what the total square footage of the buildings on the site. Mr. Grimes commented that one-half of the property is under water and the remainder of the site is intensely used. The site would probably not be developable today with the current wetland regulations. Commissioner Lewis asked if staff reviewed the plan with the City Engineer. Mr. Grimes said that the plan was reviewed by Engineering and the new construction will not affect the site regarding drainage and flooding. Commission Pentel asked about flooding in the area.. Mr. Grimes commented that the buildings were designed with crawl spaces to allow the crawl spaces to flood. All structures are three feet above the 100 year flood elevation. Commissioner Lewis asked if the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission would have to review these plans. Mr. Grimes said no because the buildings are located at an elevation of 841 feet which is three feet higher than the 100 year flood elevation. Gerald Mundt, Applicant (Architect and Partner of Pondwood), talked about the history of Pondwood and the three previous amendments. He also commented on staff's report, showed pictures of the site and talked about the development to the west of Pondwood and believes that this development severely encroaches on the pond. Mr. Mundt described his building addition. Commissioner Pentel asked if there would be any exterior entrances with the new addition. Mr. Mundt said no. Commissioner Prazak asked if the proposed new addition could be marketed alone. Mr. Mundt said he that it has to be part of one of the existing buildings. Commissioner Lewis commented that she understood the hardship for more additional space for one of the existing tenants but asked Mr. Mundt to explain his proposal knowing that Amendment No. 3 said no more development on the site. 1 1 1 E5- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 13, 1995 Page Three Mr. Mundt commented that he had not remembered the condition when preparing these plans. He doesn't think it is correct for the City Council to put such a condition on a PUD. Mr. Mundt feels that things change and amendments need to be done. He also commented on being a good business and environmentally sensitive. He feels that the problem in the area is the building on the lot to the west, which built up to the pond line in the rear and the entire front yard is parking. Vice-Chair Johnson opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Vice- Chair Johnson closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak commented that the proposal was appropriate for Mr. Mundt to present and that it accommodates drainage and doesn't add to the density of the site. Vice-Chair Johnson said she was concerned with the tenants needing more space than what is available for them on this site and this is a bandaide approach. She is also concerned about more development on the site when the Council had stipulated no more development on the site. Commissioner Lewis feels there is too much development on the site and creates a visual problem. Commissioner Groger said that even though the Council said there was too much development on the site, it still looks attractive and is good for the City. He agreed with Mr. Mundt that change does happen over the. years which may warrant amending a permit but at some point there has to be a limit. Commissioner Groger continued by commenting that the City Council made its wishes known about no more development on the site. He added that Pondwood's request is not a hardship issue. Commissioner Pentel commented that it is reasonable for Mr. Mundt to come back and ask for an amendment but that this request is not a hardship case because a tenant needs more space for its operation. Commissioner Pentel said she like the idea of no footings and that the new addition would fit in with the rest of the buildings but agrees with staff that there is too much density on the site. City Planner Elizabeth Knoblauch said that she dealt with Amendment No. 3 in 1989, which the Planning Commission had recommended against. The City Council overruled the Planning Commission, but wanted to send a message to the owners that this site was fully developed. The City Council's intent was not that they could never apply for another amendment, but if that amendment would result in structural expansion then they should be prepared to deal directly with the issue of why it should be permitted on a fully developed site similar to a request for variance. There should be a very good reason for any further expansion. Mr. Mundt commented that the tenant, who is a partner,. needs the extra space. Without the addition, the tenant would have to go outside to get to the other building. and it is impossible for their equipment (cables for computers, etc.) to be moved outdoors to the other building. Mr. Mundt feels this is a hardship case. Commissioner Prazak feels the addition would enhance the marketability of the site and the request is a reasonable one. Minutes ofi the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 13, 1995 Page Four Commissioner Pentel said that it would have been good to have the tenant who needs space at the meeting to talk about the hardship. Mark Grimes commented that this request is for an economic reason and not a hardship on the land --this is not a good precedent to set. Mr. Mundt asked if other PUD's have had a condition of no more development on their sites? Ms. Knoblauch said this is the only PUD with such a condition written right into the permit because the Planning Commission and City Council were concerned about the adverse impact more development would have on the site. There have, however, been other occasions when applicants were verbally notified that the Planning Commission felt a development had reached its limits. Mr. Mundt asked the Commission if it would made a difference if the addition were cut back to 550 sq.ft. Commissioner Kapsner said it would not affect his thinking that the site is already too intense, but added that. the site is attractive and the owners put together a fantastic development. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Lewis and motion passed by a vote of 5-1 (one commissioner absent) to recommend to the City Council to deny the request for an amendment (no. 4) to the Pondwood Office Park PUD No. 28. III. Informal Public Hearing -Amendments to the City Code Regarding Seasonal Farm Produce Sales Section 6.37. Delete "Christmas Trees." Section 11.03. Definitions -Add 82.5 "Seasonal Farm Produce Sales" Section 11.30 Permitted Uses under the Commercial Zoning District Add "Il. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales" Section 11.46 Permitted Uses under the I-1 Institutional Zoning District Add "4. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales" Section 11.87. Add new Section entitled "Seasonal Farm Produce Sales" Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of his report to the Planning Commission explaining the amendments to the City Code. He commented that the growing season will start within the next couple of months and for individual growers to come and request a CUP would take almost three months. Currently, such stands are only permitted by a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Grimes stated that other cities permit this kind of use with an Administrative Permit with certain guidelines. The Commission discussed the language to be used in the amended sections of the City Code and the requirements each applicant will have to meet. Vice-Chair Johnson opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one Vice-Chair Johnson closed the informal. public hearing. 1 a7 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 13, 1995 Page Five The Commission changed two of the proposed recommendations of staff. Staff suggested that no more than two such operations be allowed on one site if there is a joint application -- the Planning Commission recommended that this be changed to one operation. The Planning Commission talked about Christmas tree and plant sales held at churches and schools and doesn't see any- thing wrong with this practice. They would like to add the Seasonal Farm Produce Sales to the I-1 Institutional Zoning District as well as the Commercial Zoning District. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Seasonal Farm Produce Sales by Administrative Permit in the Commercial and I-1 Institutional Zoning Districts. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment AuthoritX, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, Community Standards Task Force and V Ile S uare Task F r e No reports were given. IV. Other Business No other business presented. V. Adjournment Vice-Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 PM. Lewis, Secretary 1