Loading...
04-14-97 PC Minutes2~5' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission. April 14, 1997 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 Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Sharyl Thompson, Acting Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -March 24, 1997 MOVED by Prazak, seconded. by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda as submitted. Moved by Groger, seconded by McAleese and carried unanimously to approve the March 24 minutes with the following correction: Page 4, Paragraph 3, last sentence reworded as follows: McAleese asked how the City knows how another government agency has requested or receives bids on a product of this sort that the City of Golden Valley wishes to buy. Salsbury responded that the City checks into the purchase. Page Five, Paragraph 1, first sentence: remove "s" from happenings. Page Five, Paragraph 4, last sentence: add "turf" before the grass. Informal Public Hearing - (Continued from March 10 1997] Preliminary Design Plan -- Planned Unit Development No. 75 Applicant:. Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan to allow for a mixed use of retail, office, warehouse and a lumber yard on the existing Menard site. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the west side of the building and the north side of the building. Planning Director Mark Grimes summarized what at taken place from the meeting of March 10 regarding Menards. He noted areas of concern, i.e. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Two adequacy of parking, elimination of parking spaces near the driveway to Market Street and screening on the site, particularly to the rear of the building. Grimes said that these concerns .have been addressed by Menard and are now being brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He said that staff had a concern regarding the MGM Liquor Store and Menard has submitted a letter saying that MGM's lease would terminate in the year 2001. This area will then revert to Menard space to be used for building supplies which is a permitted use in the Industrial District. Grimes said that in reviewing the Menard site, staff and the City Attorney agreed that a P.U.D. should be used to permit expansion of the store and allow Menard to go through the expansion request and allow the rental use (MGM) to continue on the site. Grimes talked about the additional 71 parking spaces proposed by Menard. He said that these spaces would be used for commercial/contractor customers and would serve their needs quite well. The overall parking on the site would be 433 parking spaces, Menards believe this is adequate for its needs. Menard's traffic consultant, Jim Benshoof agreed that with the addition of the 71 spaces to the rear of the building, parking will meet its peak demand period. Grimes noted that staff has agreed with the Menard consultant. Grimes talked about reviewing parking from other stores of similar size and believes that the. proposed parking is adequate. Grimes talked about placing a condition in the P.U.D. Permit stating that if a parking problem becomes apparent in the front of the store, :the. commercial/ contractor spaces to the rear of the building be opened either to the public or be used by employees. He said that he was also concerned about adequate parking during December, which is Menard's peak time, having Christmas tree sales in the front parking .area. This should be moved to a place where there is no parking spaces. Grimes said that Menard has eliminated the parallel parking along Market Street to allow for better ingress/egress traffic.. Grimes said that Menard is proposing a 14 foot screening fence along the north property line and a portion of the west property line. Staff, believe that the proposed wood material.,. rather the existing metal material, is an enhancement for the site and should be made a part of the plan. Grimes briefly talked about the variances for the site, saying that besides the request for reduced parking, setback variances had been granted for the site in 1988 along Hampshire, Market and the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road, and also 267. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Three along Laurel. He said that there were no landscape plans included in the packet and requested that a detailed. plan be submitted before the Preliminary Design Plan goes to the City .Council. Grimes said the landscape plan would also be reviewed by the Board of Building Review. Grimes also talked about the rural type fencing along the southeast property line and suggested that landscaping be added to soften the look of this area. He talked about the noise from loud speakers and suggested that electronic type beepers be used. Grimes told the commission that City staff is now requiring code compliance studies and one is required for the new addition to Menard. He said this is being required as part of the permit to alleviate any problems at the building inspection level. Commissioner Prazak asked Grimes who would review future adequacy of parking as related in staffs memo. Grimes said it would be the Director of Planning and Development or Chief of Fire and Inspections. Chair Pentel asked if the letter concerning zoning variances came from staff. Grimes answered it was supplied by Menard. Pentel also asked what happens if Menard does not comply with the restrictions, i.e. the outside speakers --will there be a time frame for compliance. Grimes said Menard would have until the completion of the project to comply, or as part of the P.U.D. Permit, the applicant would be given a specific date for compliance. Pentel asked what would happen if the applicant didn't adhere to the restrictions. Grimes said it would be a violation of the Code, resulting in a misdemeanor. Commissioner Johnson asked how MGM was allowed to renew their lease in 1996 -- was it because they had renewable terms of every five years? Grimes said that the last five year period on the MGM's lease runs through 2001 and they will not be allowed to renew its lease by Menard. He talked about how MGM first started leasing the area noting that there was some misunderstanding by staff on what a MGM "warehouse" actually was and that warehouses were allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. Patrick Harrigan, General Counsel for Menard, Inc., asked staff for clarification about the P.U.D. in that when the MGM lease expires in November of 2001 would the P.U.D. continue. Grimes commented the P.U.D. would continue and the MGM space would be converted to Menard space. Harrigan agreed that the space would be converted for Menard floor space. 26~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Four Harrigan addressed Condition 3, in the staff report, regarding storage buildings and Christmas tree sales. He said that Menard has moved the outdoor storage building displays to another part of the site off the parking lot. It would like to maintain the Christmas tree sales area where it has been in the past selling trees from Thanksgiving to Christmas. Harrigan commented on Condition 5 noting that Menard will do away with the existing loud speaker system because of alternative technology available which will allow them to communicate with individuals in the yard. Commissioner Prazak talked about Christmas tree sales and using prime parking spots during peak demand for parking spaces. He said the City is not saying that Menard cannot sell Christmas trees but would like the sales lot placed elsewhere. Harrigan commented that because of the added parking spaces there is room to continue this past practice of selling trees in the same area. Chair Pentel asked if Menard ran the Christmas tree lot or is it a .non-profit organization. Prazak asked how many spaces occupy the Christmas tree lot.. Ross Berglove, Manager at Menard, 6800 Wayzata Blvd., said that the tree lot consumes 18 parking spaces. Pentel asked again if it was Menard who runs the tree lot and Berglove said yes. Commissioner Johnson asked if they had looked at placing the tree lot in the back yard. Berglove said yes, but this kind of sales need visibility and would not work in the back yard. Commissioner Kapsner asked if Menard had the Christmas tree sales because of the business they do or to bring people into the store. Berglove commented that they sell approximately 1300 trees or about four semi-trailers full. Kapsner commented on using a portion of setback along the east property line for the tree sales. Marv Prochaska, Vice-President of Real Estate for Menard, commented that the problem with having the sale of trees in this location would make it easier for theft to occur. Prochaska commented on the parking lot being adequate; he also said that he would like to see no parking signs on both sides of Hampshire. He commented that the vehicles parking on this street and the frontage road are going to Burger King. Prochaska commented on the southeast corner of the lot saying that Menard is not in favor of putting up a wood fence but would work with staff pertaining to this corner. Prazak asked Prochaska if Menard would be willing to limit the number of spaces used for Christmas tree sales and Prochaska said yes. Prazak asked about the landscaping plan and Prochaska commented that he, Berglove and Harrigan 269 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Five were on the site and inventoried the plantings and talked about what is there now. Grimes commented that a landscape plan is required as part of the P.U.D. requirements and may mean just look at what is existing. Grimes and Prochaska agreed to working with the City Forester for suggestions of any further plantings. Prazak asked what new services would be provided with the expansion of the store. Berglove said that the expansion would provide more room for customers. Currently the aisles are too narrow in the store and there are not enough cash registers. Commissioner Groger asked if there would be a sales person attending the Christmas tree. lot. Berglove commented that from 10am on there is and that the head cashier and others monitor the lot all the time. When Menard is closed, the temporary fence around the lot is locked.. Groger asked if the tree lot could be moved farther away from the front of the store. Berglove said that the customer has to come into the building to pay for the tree, so it is best to keep the lot as close to the cash registers as possible. Kapsner asked how many employee cars are parked on the lot on an average day. Berglove said 40-45 and with a shift change it could vary up to 60 for a short period of time. McAleese asked about Condition 2 giving the Director of Planning discretion to open up the back yard, which is asemi-secure area, to customers or employees and would this work. Berglove commented that the way it is currently set up it would not work, but things could change but prefer it didn't. He noted that there are approximately 250 commercial/contractor customers who hold cards for parking in this back area and have now opened it up to people who are doing big projects. McAleese noted that he cannot see why a contractor would not use this space because the contractor desk is in the back. Grimes said that from reviewing the parking study it looks as though opening up the back lot is not going to have to happen, but is using the condition as a safe guard. He continued by saying that Menard could possibly give some of their employees cards to park in the back to-free up parking in the front. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission\ April 14, 1997 Page Six Tom .Lieberman, 250 South Jersey, commented that the loud speaker issue seems to have been addressed and has only one other concern about landscaping with the addition of a 14 ft. wooden fence. He would like to see landscaping which can grow faster and have more height and density to it. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak commented that with the encouragement from Menards for contractors to be using back yard parking, would suggest that the Christmas tree sales lot be limited to 20 parking spaces. Pentel asked if this would be a new condition, Prazak said no, just reword Condition 3. Grimes asked if he wanted to include "at Menard's discretion" for which spaces would be used. Prazak said yes. Kapsner said there is one more option to be explored, that being that if 20 spaces are going to be used for a Christmas tree lot, that 20 employees could park off site, maybe at Good Shepherd Church. Johnson commented on whether these 20 employees could park in the back lot and have the Christmas tree sales in the employee lot. Groger said that he was not concerned with the Christmas tree lot and parking spaces, based on personal observation. Commissioner Lewis said that she does not see a problem with the lot and would like to see the tree sales continue. She added that should there become a problem, the Director of Planning could do something about it. Prazak said that Condition 2 could be changed to open the back yard to customers or staff and leave the specific language up to staff. Chair Pentel asked about replacement of the split rail fence. She would like it updated and improved and thought a black mesh or chain link fence was a good option to prevent people from parking in the Menard lot and then eating at the fast food restaurants. She questioned whether this could be added to Condition 1, that the site plan show a new fence. Groger had a question for staff on whether Hampshire would be rebuilt. Grimes said he was unsure when Hampshire was scheduled to be redone. He noted that when the road is rebuilt, it will probably have a sidewalk to connect to the frontage road sidewalk. Groger said that he believes that curbing will be put in when the road is redone. Grimes answer yes. Kapsner commented that he believed that the road had been redone when the pond on .Laurel was put in. 271 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Seven Prazak asked if this is a new P.U.D. Knoblauch answered it is a new P.U.D. for an existing development. McAleese said that another type of fence may be more appropriate and believes the fence issue, under Condition 6, be addressed in the landscaping plan. Pentel agreed. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 76, subject to the seven conditions. Condition 3 will be revised to include language concerning no more than 20 parking spaces to be used for Christmas tree sales. III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land lase Plan MaP Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities IV. Informal Public Hearing -Rezoning Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Rezoning of the subject property from industrial to Institutional (I-3) Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his staff report. He said that Hennepin County Property Services is requesting the City to amend its Plan Map and approve a rezoning of the subject property to allow for a boys detention facility for Hennepin County Community Corrections. He noted the. subject property is currently zoned Industrial and that the existing structure had been used as a group home for adolescent girls. Since the mid-1970's, it has not been used for the past few years, but has been on the market. Grimes commented that Hennepin County was denied additional beds at its downtown facility. He 272 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eight said Hennepin County would use the subject property to house boys who were not a threat to the community. Grimes said. the County chose this site because it was previously used as a group home. He noted that the Council, in 1975, under a provision of the Zoning Code at that time, allowed for this use. At that time, the City Council could allow a use in the Industrial District if the City Council determined that the use was not detrimental to the neighborhood. This clause was removed from the Code somewhere around 1988. Grimes noted that Hennepin County was willing to use the existing footprint and make extensive renovations to the building which would have been consistent with the zoning code. The County met with the Industrial neighbors in the area to explain what they wanted to do. The neighbors reactions were that they knew that Hennepin County could operate a detention center from the existing building, but would rather see a new facility with a better constructed outdoor activity area, better landscaping and better parking for the site. 1 Grimes noted that staff went to the City Council, in February of 1997, and the Council asked staff to look at the alternatives to allow this type of facility. Staff and the City Attorney's best suggestion would be to rezone to Institutional and the Plan Map be amended to Semi-Public Facility so a Conditional Use Permit could be issued for a residential facility on the site. Hennepin County would then build a new facility as shown on the plan submitted. Grimes noted that variances may be needed for this proposed building and the applicant may .need to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioner Johnson asked if Hennepin County has committed to which type offenders would be housed at the. facility. Grimes asked Johnson to address that question to Sig Fine from Hennepin County Corrections. Grimes talked about a covenant agreement for this site between the City and County that would state the kind of offenders to be housed in this facility. Commissioner Kapsner asked which property is located directly to the east of the subject property. Grimes said it is Boustead Electric Company. Chair Pentel asked if the covenant would be attached to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Grimes answered yes. Pentel asked if the CUP comes before the commission for review and Grimes said yes. Commissioner Groger said that his problem is that the City is taking an existing nonconforming situation and making it permanent by changing the zoning and Plan Map'. Mark said yes: Grimes said the approval of the rezoning would make 273 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Nine the property consistent with the Plan Map. Groger said he didn't have a problem with the existing use and attached covenant, but what happens in the future if the number of juvenile offenders goes down. Grimes said that they have set out specifics in the covenant and the City would have to agree to any changes. City Planner Knoblauch asked for clarification that if Hennepin County did not want to use it as a detention facility, but maybe a clinic, would this be allowed. Grimes said no. Hennepin County .has agreed by covenant to use this site as stated and would have to come back to the City if the use would change, whether permitted by code or not. McAleese said for the purposes of rezoning, we are talking about a general type of use that will occur here, but on the other hand this could .fall through and we don't know if the covenant will be signed further restricting the use of the property. There are other meetings at which it will be addressed. Grimes said that staff will only entertain the CUP if the covenant is attached. McAleese said that that was down the line and technically we can think of the covenant but not something concrete. Grimes said. the commission will need to ask if they are comfortable with this zoning district at this location. He said that because this is a small piece a property, there are some limitations and how, it can be used. However, we are trying to put protections in the code that Hennepin County will be the only users of the property. Pentel asked if the City will collect taxes on this property. if Hennepin County has it. Grimes said no. McAleese asked if the rezoning and Plan Map amendment doesn't get approved tonight or by the Council what happens. He said that it is his understanding that Hennepin County could use the existing facility "as is". Grimes said yes. Grimes said that Hennepin County could maintain the footprint and rebuild. McAleese asked what the City review process would be. Grimes said they would need to pull a building permit. Grimes said that in any case, Hennepin County would supply a covenant limiting its use to 16 beds for juvenile boys. McAleese asked for clarification on the previous nonconforming use, that hasn't been in business for 6 months. Grimes said that staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney who has commented that if someone consistently markets the property for a grandfathered nonconforming use, the property is not considered abandoned. Kapsner asked how many beds were proposed. Grimes said 16. Kapsner commented that this could possibly revert back into a group home and Grimes answered yes. He continued saying that once you review the plans, one can see that there is a specific use in mind. Kapsner asked if the City of Golden Valley ~~ ~ ~. ~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Ten was compensated by Hennepin County regarding past police calls to this site. Grimes said no. Groger asked about the appearance of the building. Grimes said that Hennepin County has sketches and is willing to work with the area businesses. Kapsner asked how close the nearest school was located. Grimes said the Sandburg Junior High is a couple of blocks to the east. Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, complimented staff whose has worked with Hennepin County for the past five months. Mr. Fine talked about the need for space to house less serious juvenile males. He noted that one person has escaped in the past 14 years from the juvenile facility in Minneapolis. Mr. Fine talked about the need for more space and what kind of juveniles would be housed on the subject property. He noted the average length of stay would be approximately seven days. He talked about trying to comply with the City's zoning code, by taking the building apart, putting in the needed security features and still maintain the building footprint. Mr. Fine told the. commission that his organization met with the neighbors and they would like to see a new facility built which would blend better with the Industrial area. He said there decision to pursue the proposed requests resulted from the neighbors concerns about security, aesthetics of the existing building and could a new building be built that blended better. Commissioner Kapsner asked if rebuilding is cheaper than adding another story onto. the facility downtown. Mr. Fine said yes, it was significantly cheaper. Commissioner Johnson questioned what kind of offenders would be placed at this site. Mr. Fine said it would be offender-based instead of offense-based. These juveniles will be hand selected. He doesn't anticipate any public safety risk. Commissioner Prazak asked if an offender would be moved from this facility to downtown if there were any problems associated with the offender. Fine answered yes. Chair Prazak asked how much movement would be seen from this facility to downtown. Fine said there would be daily movement. There may be two or three trips a day. All juveniles will be booked downtown and then brought to this facility. Grimes asked if food would be brought in everyday. Fine said yes.. ~7'~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eleven Pentel said she noticed a study. area on the plan. She asked if there will be visitors. Fine said yes, you might see parents, professionals, or attorneys. Fine said that under State Statute, they can hold a juvenile in detention for 14 days before they have to give formal education so the plan is to not hold anyone that long. Someone who would be held that long will be located at the downtown facility. Grimes commented that there are set hours for visiting and a limitation on the number of visitors at one time. All visitors must first call for an appointment. Chair Pentel asked about the outdoor activities and asked about visibility to the outside. Fine said there would be a brick wall Wayne Winsor, Winsor/Faricy Architects, reviewed the proposed building plan. Commissioner Lewis asked if the outdoor activity area would be covered. Mr. Winsor answered no. Pentel asked at what time of the evening activities would be outside. Barb Karn, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center answered that at the downtown facility, the outdoor area is lit and activities go on until 9:30pm, but this would not be the case at the Golden Valley facility. The juveniles would only be outside during daylight hours. Kapsner asked if the proposed building is designed so a second story could be added. Fine and Karn both said no. Groger asked the applicant, given the restrictions being placed on this facility, i.e. number of males to be housed and only for a short period of time, is there a long term need for this type of facility and restrictions. Karn said yes, that demographic studies have been done to determine the number of beds that are needed. After the year 2010, the age range of these juveniles start dropping. Pentel asked if 16 beds is really what was needed. Karn responded that for detention purposes, this number of beds was sufficient. Grimes asked if the juveniles would be monitored when outdoors. Karn responded that outdoor activities are always monitored. Groger asked Karn if it is anticipated that this facility would be full all the time. Karn answered yes. ~7~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Twelve Pentel asked what kind of signage would be placed on the property. Fine answered only the address. Pentel asked how many of existing trees would remain. The architect said all the trees on the boulevard would remain. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing Steve Svensen, VP & co-owner of Boustead Electric, 7135 Madison Avenue West (located directly to the east.of the proposed property), said that all the neighbors agreed that they do not want to see another facility like the last one. Mr. Svensen commented that the neighbors want the property rezoned, so Hennepin County can build a security building and take care of these juveniles. He noted that the County has made a lot of concessions so business customers are not exposed to the residents of this facility. McAleese commented that visually it would be an improvement. Svensen agreed. Curtis J. Smith, CJ Printing, 2420 Nevada Avenue North (property located to the south of subject property). Mr. Smith commented that his biggest concern were people on the outside trying to get residents out. He is concerned that people may climb his building trying to get the residents of this facility out. Smith noted that his building is five (5) feet of the property line. Pentel pointed out that the plans show that the proposed detention center's outside wall would be 15 feet from the subject property line. Grimes reaffirmed with the applicant that there would be outdoor security cameras scanning the area at all times. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Prazak commented that he was comfortable with the "spot zoning" for this area. He believes that the proposed use would be an improvement over the previous use. Prazak commented that he believes the City of Golden Valley. has a responsibility to provide facilities of this kind. Johnson agreed with Prazak's comments and added that she liked the idea of a new building instead of remodeling the existing one. She believes this type of facility is greatly needed and is appropriate for the City to participate in placing this type of facility in Golden Valley. McAleese said if the proposal was for an empty lot, he would be unable to support either of the requests, but because the City is stuck with the existing conditions, the proposal would be an improvement. McAleese noted that he is 277 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Thirteen bothered by something that comes close to being "spot zoning" but is willing to go along with this proposal. He said he was deeply troubled by the interpretation of the zoning code that a "group home" and a "jail" are the same things, but doesn't believe that this particular case is so bad. McAleese continued saying that if the facility were for hard core criminals, he would be troubled and perhaps the zoning code isn't specific enough on what is meant by residential. facility. The Planning Commission may want to revisit the zoning code on this issue. Prazak commended Hennepin County for contacting the neighboring businesses regarding this issue and that the design takes into account the businesses concerns. Kapsner asked the applicant if the residents of the facility would be unsupervised in the outside area at any time. Fine answered no. Kapsner asked staff what affect. would this facility have on the housing goals for Golden Valley. Staff said none.. Groger said he supports the proposal and believes it is a vast improvement and that his only concern would be the outdoor activity area regarding to noise or things being thrown over the wall. He said that he trusts staff for monitoring this situation and taking appropriate action. Groger added that he does like the flag poles in the front of the building. Pentel said that she favors the proposal, but is concerned that when demographics change, there may be a need to reconsider what is happening at this site. She believes that through the CUP process and covenant, that the Planning Commission and staff will be assured that it will be for juvenile males and only for 16 beds. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. MOVED by Kapnner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (I-3). V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, C~ Council and Board of Zoning~~peals No reports were given. ~~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Fourteen VI. Other Business Commissioner Kapsner gave a brief summary of his encounter at the APA convention in San Diego. Staff and the .commission briefly talked about the Hidden Lakes development project. VII. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:55pm. ilie Joh~is~in, Secretary 1 1