Loading...
01-26-98 PC Minutes~31~ Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 26, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. Approval of Minutes -November 24, 1997 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 12, 1998 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -Amendment (No.1) to the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 75 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Amend P.U.D. No. 75 which would allow for additional construction on the west side of the existing structure over and beyond what was approved at a City Council meeting on July 15, 1997; and eliminate the proposed addition on the north side of the building which was approved by the City Council at its meeting of July 15, 1997. Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of staff findings concerning the request to amend P.U.D. No. 75. Grimes reviewed an updated site plan with the commission noting the proposed northern and western additions that were approved by the City Council at its meeting of July 15, 1997. He also mentioned the parking and fencing along the north and east side of the site. Grimes told the commission that the applicant is now requesting to amend the P.U.D. which would eliminate the proposed addition on the north side and allow for an addition of 7,439 sq.ft. on the west side of the building which would be attached to a proposed addition approved in July, 1997. Grimes said that the new proposal on the west side would go into the setback by approximately 15 feet; the required front setback is 35 feet. He told the commission that one positive outcome of the amendment would be the elimination of the driveway which is located on the curve on Market Street. 1 1 Grimes said that the number of parking spaces would be increased by nine, and that the entire site would now be use by Menard because MGM Liquor, which leases a space from Menard, would be moving out in spring to a location in the OPUS Development along Hwy. 55. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 2 ~~ Grimes commented that the P.U.D. Permit would remain almost the same with some slight modifications regarding the building size. He noted that the property would not have to be replatted. Grimes reminded the commission that when the original P.U.D. was brought before them and the City Council, there were concerns about parking. Staff placed a condition in the permit which said that if parking problems occurred, Menards would have its employees park in the back yard or find parking off-site. Grimes said that the fence being proposed for the corner of Hampshire and the Frontage Road is a black, 10-foot chain link fence. Chair Pentel questioned the height of the fence and was this height allowed per City code, and believes the height of the fence to be excessive. Grimes said that the height of fences is not discussed in City Code; he would discuss the .height of the fence with the Inspections Department. Grimes said the purpose of the fence was to eliminate people parking in the Menard lot and walking across Hampshire to the fast food restaurants. Marv Prochaska, representative for Menard, said they would replace the fencing at the height which now exists, which is believed to be 6 feet. Commissioner Groger asked Grimes to clarify how close the building would be to the setback tine. Grimes said it would come to 20 feet from the right-of-way. Groger asked if the proposed building would then be 35 or 40 feet from the street itself. Grimes said yes because of the curve in the street there is more right-of-way. Grimes reviewed the site plan and scaled out the footage from the proposed building to the street. Commissioner Martins asked if landscaping could be placed in the right-of-way, especially with the driveway being closed off. Grimes said.that it could probably be done, but would need to check with the Engineering Department. He said materials should not be planted close to the street that would die due to snow plowing. Martens said the landscaping on the site is weak and coniferous trees, of a good size, would enhance the site. Grimes said that the landscaping plan is part of the building permit and the BBR have asked for something more. Pentel asked if the commission could recommend an increase in the landscaping. Grimes said yes. Martens asked if the commission could recommend a certain size of tree. Grimes was unsure, but noted that the City does have landscape standards. City Planner Knoblauch said that the landscape is measured by the diameter of the tree, not the height. Martins asked if the City could enforce employee parking to the rear of the building or off- site. Grimes said that if there is an -issue regarding parking the permit states that employee parking must be moved away from the front of the building; this can be done by employees parking in the rear or off-site. Grimes also said that a parking analysis was completed which states that the 434 parking spaces being provided would be adequate. He said that staff believes there would be adequate parking. Marv Prochaska,. representative for Menard, Inc., told the commission the reason for the amendment to the P.U.D. is because they had negotiated with MGM to leave the site in Spring. He said that because of this, they could omit the proposed construction to the north of the building, but would need to enlarge the already proposed area on the west side. Prochaska said that he would work with the City concerning landscaping on the west side of the building in the right-of-way. n;> ~~<°+ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 3 Pentel commented that the site plan is difficult to figure out because of the lines going through the plan. Prochaska reviewed the site plan with the commission. Pentel asked about the chain link fence along the west side of the building and asked if what is being proposed would eliminate the chain link fence. Prochaska said yes. Pentel asked about the dotted areas on the site plan. Prochaska said the dotted areas represented the parking which was presented with the original P.U.D. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the floor would be raised on the southwest side to match what is existing. Prochaska commented that the entire building is built on pilings. He said the proposed addition would have the same elevation of the existing floor. Pentel told the commission and the representative that she had spent some time driving through the site and parked on the site to observe what was going on. She noted that there were cars blocking each other on the west side of the building and asked if Berglove was aware of this. Ross Berglove, General manager of the Golden Valley Menards, commented that Monday through Friday, Saturn employees park in this western area and that it has not caused any problems. Pentel said that it was her understanding that Lupient was to be taking care of its parking needs through across-parking agreement on their own property. Pentel asked staff if this would be a problem with the City or is this something that can be agreed upon by neighboring property owners. Grimes noted that when Saturn, located west of the Menards site, presented its plan to the City for a car dealership, they said they had enough parking. He said it now looks as though they are using employee parking spaces for car sales. Commissioner Johnson asked, since Menard would be using the MGM Liquor Store space would there still be a need for the expansion. Prochaska said yes, because of the different elevated floor levels on the southwest side, more space is needed to get the same maximum space for its products. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Tom Lieberman, 250 South Jersey, commented that removing the western driveway is a good idea. He told the commission that he was present to reinforce the conditions that were approved from last summer with the original PUD. Lieberman said that one of the conditions was the use of a pager system; he said that Menards is still using s loud speaker system in the back yard. He also reminded the commission of the condition of a higher wall to shield its materials along the north property line. Pentel asked Prochaska if they are still planning on higher fencing along the north property line. Prochaska commented that none of the previously approved changes would be altered other than eliminating the northern addition to the building. Pentel asked when Menard plans on moving to a pager system. Berglove said that they have been looking at pager systems and had a problem with whom they ordered from and are now working out the problem; they hope to have this system in place by spring. City Planner Knoblauch said that technically Menard is in violation of its PUD because the permit states that he pager system was to be in place by August 1, 1997. ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 4 Pentel asked if pagers are being used in other locations on the site. Berglove said that pagers are .used in the front office for the front parking lot but this system did not work in the back lot because it was not loud enough due to the traffic in the back lot. He said they have experimented with pagers and believe they have found one that would work. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said that after spending time on the lot, she is in favor of closing the western entrance into Menards, but is less in favor of moving the addition closer to the street. She believes the 14-foot wood fence and building would be too much of a presence that close to the street and would change the site line. Commissioner Prazak said that he agreed with Pentel's analysis. Johnson asked staff, of the 7,439 sq.ft. addition being proposed at this meeting, how much of it could be added on without going in the front setback. Martens calculated about 2,500 sq.ft. Johnson said that she believes that a 2,500 sq.ft. addition would be considered a decent addition without going into the setback. Pentel said if setbacks were met, there could be additional landscaping on the west side. Prazak noted that the site is quite full at this time and having one corner softened with landscaping would be useful for the site. Martens and Pentel discussed the site plan referring to the west side of the building .and the fence abutting it. Pentel asked about the 14-foot high screening fence with greenspace on the west side. She said it would have been helpful to seen what the elevation looked like on the plan. Prochaska said that at the very left side of the site plan (L-1) it shows that the fencing would have pallets on the inside, with landscaping on the outside of the fence. Martens said that he could support this project if there were strong landscaping and some berming on the west side of the site. Martens said that he too was concerned about the 14- foot high fencing, but with the property landscaping, would not be as bothered by it. Groger said that he was not bothered with the proposed building coming within 20 feet of the right-of-way line, because the right-of-way provides quite a bit of greenspace on the curve. He believes it is more of a benefit to remove the driveway. Groger said he would like to see landscaping as a buffer but understands it is not the commission's responsibility to decide what type of landscaping is put in. Martens asked staff if the commission could place a condition on the PUD amendment regarding landscaping because of the setback issue. Grimes said that the approval of the amendment can be conditioned on landscaping and if the City Council agrees with the commission, the landscaping can be added in the General Plan of Development; the landscaping would also be reviewed by the Board of Building Review (BBR). Grimes told the commission that he would have to talk with the City Engineer regarding landscaping in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 5 Kapsner said that he would prefer to see the setbacks met, that setbacks allow for landscaping and greenspace. He said because of the uniqueness of this site with the curve, this is being accomplished. Kapsner said that he believes the City is getting a deal because Menards is closing off the entrance/exit onto Market Street from its site. He said because of the closure of the driveway and the large right-of-way, he is not as bothered by the building not meeting setback requirements on the west side. Commissioner McAleese said that he is opposed to the building encroaching into the setback area. He agreed that this is a slightly different case because of the unique curve and the City is gaining something by closing off the driveway. He said that if Menards could specify at tonight's meeting where additional landscaping could be placed in the area, he could vote in favor of the amendment, but because this issue cannot be addressed at this meeting, he would have to vote against the proposal. He would like to see a good landscape plan. Prochaska suggested Menards work the City's Forester. Johnson agreed with Prochaska's suggestion of having Menards work with the City Forester. She also agreed with Kapsner and Martens that by having the right kind of landscaping in this area, the building would not be as noticeable, and because of the layout of Market Street. Prazak asked for clarification of the distance from building to street. Prochaska said it was approximately 40 feet from the proposed building to the street. Grimes reminded the commission that the sidewalk along that side of the street would remain. Pentel asked if the sidewalk would be put in where the driveway is being taken out. Grimes said that would be done by Menards as part of their construction. Grimes made a suggestion that the sidewalk be extended from the building westward to the existing sidewalk. Grimes told the commission that this item would tentatively go before the City Council at its meeting of February 17. He said that an updated landscaping plan could come back to the commission at its February 9 meeting and the staff memo could reflect any comments from the commission. Kapsner said that he would be willing to make a recommendation, trusting that the BBR would do its job; he doesn't believe that the plan needs to be looked at again. Martens said that he could approve the amendment with some landscape modifications, that a landscape plan should be prepared with help from the City Forester and the Engineering Department reviewing the right-of-way for landscaping. He said that the plan could then be brought back to the commission and its comments forwarded to the City Council. MOVED by Groger with the condition that the applicant prepare a landscape plan prior to the City Council meeting and have it reviewed by the City Forester and Engineering Department, and have the paging system in and working before a permit is pulled; seconded by Martens. McAleese noted that the motion should be changed which does not attach the paging system to the building permit in case Menard does not construct the addition. Groger amended his motion, seconded by Martens. Groger suggested that the paging system be in place and working by April 1 ~. Prochaska agreed. C ..:. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 6 McAleese questioned staff about the sidewalk and its extension. Prochaska said that it would be made a part of the plan. Knoblauch commented that this is considered an off-site improvement. Pentel suggested that the commission specify the sidewalk in the motion. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger to approve the amendment to P.U.D. No. 75 with the additional condition that the sidewalk be extended westward from the building to the right-of-way sidewalk. Pentel said that she believes there is a useful purpose to maintain distance of building to streets and feels the City would be better served with a smaller building. McAleese concurred. Pentel called the vote; 5-2 in favor to recommend to the City Council for approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 75 which would allow for the additional construction of a 7,439 sq.ft. addition onto an already approved proposed addition and that a landscape plan be submitted to the City for review by the City Forester and City Engineer; the sidewalk from the building be extended to the right-of-way sidewalk on the west side of the site; and the pager system for the back yard be in place by April 1, 1998. III. Reports on Meetings of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority,, and Board of Zoning Appeals McAleese noted that he did not get~his Council agenda packet until Wednesday for Tuesday night's City Council meeting and asked staff to verify the zip code being used by whomever sends out this agenda. Pentel talked about a Sensible Land Use luncheon she attended. IV. Adjournment chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:D 1