Loading...
03-09-98 PC Minutes~~~ 1 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 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, March 9, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson,. Kapsner, McAleese and Prazak; absent was Martins. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Minutes of February 23, 1998 Not available. II. Informal Public Hearing -Amendment (No. 2) to the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 71 Applicant: Valley Creek, LLC Address: 8301, 8401, and 8501 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Amend Preliminary Design Plan -P.U.D. No. 71 - To allow for the existing one lot to be divided into three lots with each building situated on its own lot; and to allow for additional square footage of signage, up and beyond what is permitted in the sign code, for each of the three buildings. 1 Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of the request to amend P.U.D. No. 71 which is located in Area A1, Valley Square Redevelopment Area. He said the three buildings are now under construction. Grimes said the first part of the amendment request is to create three lots instead of the existing one lot. This will allow each building to be situated on its own lot. He said that staff may want to talk to the owner about adjusting the property lines so each lot would be conforming. Grimes said the second request is to allow for more signage on the buildings than what is permitted. The owner originally said that signage would meet the sign code requirements but as the developer located tenants the need for signage increased. Grimes said that there would be no monument signage, only directional signage at egress/ingress points. He said there would be small signs above each entrance and there would illuminated signage around the top of each of the buildings. Grimes noted that the permitted signage for the buildings would be 150 sq.ft., the owner is requesting 240 sq.ft.; 90 feet more than the maximum allowed. Grimes said that the Inspections Department has contacted other cities regarding its sign code and found that some cities have more sign regulations and some cities have less. Grimes indicated to the commission that the proposed signage is the look of the future; businesses are leasing buildings and having the signage on the building. ~.1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 2 Chair Pentel asked if the requested 240 sq.ft. of signage includes the small signs over the door; Grimes said yes. Commissioner Groger recited the request for signage again and said he assumed there would be no monument sign; Grimes said he was correct. Chair Pentel asked about signs at all entrances to the site. Grimes said the entrance signs would indicate the address of the building or be directional signage. Commissioner Kapsner asked how the square footage of-the signs are determined. Grimes said the Inspections Department measures the square footage of the sign by going around it; technically it can be difficult to calculate. Commissioner Johnson. asked if the signs on each of the buildings would be uniform, in that the lettering and lighting would be the same. Grimes said the lighting of the signs would be the same but is unsure about the type of lettering to be used. Grimes told the commission the City would require additional cross easements subject to the lot change and that documents would need to be submitted to the City and its attorney for review before General Plan review. Grimes also told the commission that there is a small discrepancy between the total actual building size and what was approved, and it would be appropriate for the commission to review this now. Commissioner Groger asked Grimes if he was suggesting that the commission approve the revised square footage at this time. He noted that with the increase in building size, two, additional parking spaces would be required. Grimes said the buildings are being constructed at this time, so the commission could ask the owner to create two more parking spaces by reducing the size of some islands or leave it the way it is. Grimes indicated that parking spaces are now over the required amount because of the clinic. He said the developer planned more parking to begin with to have a cushion or comfort level. Pentel asked if each of the lots, as they are being platted, have enough parking. Grimes reviewed the site plan regarding the parking. He said there would be a cross parking agreement. Pentel asked if there would be only one tenant in each building and their name would be on the building. Grimes said there would be more than one tenant in a building and asked Pentel to address this question to the applicant. Johnson asked if the smaller tenants would not have signage. Grimes said if they are a large enough tenant, they would have signage on the building. Grimes told the commission that overall the City is pleased with the development of the site and noted that the owner would like to have North Memorial in its building by Spring of this year. Representative Frank Dunbar, 5000 Glenwood Avenue, asked the commission if they had questions. ~_~, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 3 Pentel asked about signage on the building. Dunbar said it would be uniform, there would be one color of back lighting. He said they may allow some variation in print type. Dunbar also noted that tenants for the buildings are taking full floors. Groger asked about street addressing and if there were a smaller tenant, and if someone was coming to the site would it be confusing to locate that small tenant. Dunbar responded those people coming to the building more than likely would be the employees of these tenants. He said that the addresses were changed from Olson Memorial Highway to Golden Valley Road which was more appealing and that the addresses for the buildings would be on entrance signs into the site. Groger asked if it was necessary to duplicate signage on the top of the building and over the front entrance. Dunbar said that it was important to the tenant to have its name at both places. He said that they did not want alot of signage on the top of the buildings facing Golden Valley Road so they went with the smaller signage above the entrance to the buildings. Groger asked if this signage above the doors would be lit; Dunbar said no. Groger asked who would own each building. Dunbar explained that for financing flexibility it would be easier to have each building on its own lot. He said that he had one tenant requesting the right to first refusal to buy the building down the road. Johnson asked about adjusting the lot lines and working on cross easement agreements. Dunbar replied that he would work with staff on these issues. Kapsner asked about the cross easement agreement and if it was normal that when there were buildings owned separately, there would only be one management company handling the snow plowing. Dunbar said that it would be reasonable that there would be one company doing it, and if there wasn't, then each lot would be plowed according to its lot lines. Grimes asked about parking lot repair. Dunbar said that the maintenance of the parking lots would be according to lot lines, which would be defined in the cross easement agreement. Pentel asked if this was staff's recommendation. Grimes said that the City has usually worked with homeowners associations and cross easement agreements where everyone is putting in funds to handle repairs. He said this proposal is a little different and staff and the City Attorney would need to review the agreement. Commissioner McAleese noted that the parking lot would not work if the entire lot is not cleared. He said the whole idea of the development was a campus setting and is not sure this development would have been approved if it would have been presented the first time around with three separate lots. Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Groger commented that he is troubled by the proposal in that he agreed with McAleese about not getting approved if the initial presentation for the development was for three lots.. He said he was troubled by the maintenance agreement and without something in front of the commission is unsure what is being agreed upon. Groger commented that he sees no benefit Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 4 to the City to have separate lots and this may cause problems down the road with different ownership. He doesn't find the financial aspect important enough to override the original approval. Groger also said he was troubled by too much signage which may give the buildings a cluttered look. Johnson said that she doesn't see a problem with the division of the lots but the lines should conform more to code requirements. She believes there is a uniformity with the layout of the buildings and proposed signage. Johnson said it is more important that cross easement agreements are laid out so it is clear to the owner and future owners what is required of them. Kapsner said that he agreed with Johnson. He said that the proposed signage for the buildings is the way of the future and is happening now, and believes it is an important selling point. Kapsner believes that staff can adequately guard against difficulties concerning the separate lots through the cross easement agreements. Commissioner Prazak asked if other PUD's have been split up. Grimes said Area C has four separate lots, one for each of the restaurants, the main building and the post office building. He said that there is a cross easement agreement for the. site and when the documents were reviewed there was specific language concerning a parking agreement. Grimes said the grass and vegetation is maintained all the same way for that campus look. Grimes said the commission could recommend that the grounds be maintained to adhere to a "campus" look. McAleese commented on a recent amendment to the PUD ordinance which states that one party could go forward without the consent of the other owners. Grimes said that could be the case if the PUD Permit were written that way. He said the Valley Creek PUD Permit is not and all owners must agree to any amendments to the PUD. McAleese asked if there needs to be language concerning any changes to any of the sites, that it must be approved by all owners and should this be included in the cross easement agreement. Grimes said this would be a reasonable request. Prazak referred that this should be added as a condition. McAleese commented on the technical point of this application qualifying as a PUD, noting that it does qualify because it already exists as a PUD. He continued by saying that on the issue of the material that is to be presented as part of the package, he noted that he has heard complaints over the past year that staff has made arbitrary decisions and wants to defend City staff in this case because the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that the necessary information is available to make a decision. McAleese said that although the materials the commission received did not contain all the materials required, these materials are in the City files and can be reviewed. McAleese said he is comfortable with each lot having separate ownership as long as there is a cross easement agreement and uniformity among the buildings. He said that signage is a bigger issue and understands the need. He said Kapsner may be right about where lighting for buildings is going but is not sure about this site, and if this is approved, then there would be a precedent for others wanting this kind of lighting on their buildings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 5 McAleese said in this case he would be willing to support what is being proposed as long as staff reviews and approves the lighting effects. McAleese said that he would like to see language suggesting that staff review the lighting plan. Grimes said this could be suggested to the Board of Building Review to give special review to the signage of the buildings. Pentel commented that she was happy to see development on Area A-1. She said she was glad to see there would not be a pylon sign and that the names on the buildings, facing Golden Valley Road, would not be lit. She agreed with others that if this would have been three lots when the original PUD came before the commission, she would not have recommended approval. She said she does not have a problem with three lots on the site. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one commissioner absent) to recommend approval of an amendment to the Valley Creek P.U.D., with the following conditions. The applicant should be required to supply more precise site plans as this proposal moves forward. Those plans should be accurately scaled and should reflect actual sizes and locations of all three buildings as well as any other site improvements that are already in place, but in all other respects should be identical with the currently approved site plans unless the developer specifically requests further revision of the PUD Permit. The property lines may be changed as per the requirements of the City's Inspections Department. 2. The applicant should be required to prepare agreements covering cross-access, cross- parking, and joint maintenance/replacement of on-site improvements. All agreements, in draft form, should be available at the time of General Plan application for review and comment by the City Attorney; the cost of that review should be paid by the applicant. The cross parking agreement should contain strong language indicating that if one owner requests a change to the PUD, all owners must agree to the change. There also should be language which states that the three lots will maintain a "campus" look through vegetation, plantings, signage, etc. 3. The final plat should meet city staff requirements for plat name and for easements, as well as any requirements forwarded by MnDOT. 4. The development should be allowed to have up to 240 square feet of business identification signage instead of the 150 square feet permitted per City Code, but should be required to comply with all other on-site signage requirements. 5. The amended PUD Permit should state the revised square footage of the buildings as given to Planning staff by the Inspections staff as follows: Three office buildings, each three stories in height with a total of 132,396 sq.ft. of floor area. (East and west buildings each have 41,332 sq.ft. and the south building has 49,732 sq.ft.) ~~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 6 III. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan (Amendment No. 21 to P.U.D. No. 42 Applicant: C. S. McCrossan Address: 812 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, MN Request: The amendment would allow for the consolidation of two of the three lots. A two-story office building, with a lower level, totalling approximately 48,000 sq.ft. would be constructed on the consolidated lots. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, gave a summary of his report to the commission. He told them that this was the former Holiday hotel and restaurant site, and when McCrossan bought the site many years ago he demolished most of the hotel and restaurant leaving the single story units of the hotel located at the back of the site. Grimes said today only one building has survived which is located on Lot 3 which houses single tenants. Grimes told the commission that there would be a MnDOT taking of a small portion of the front of Lot 1. He said it was believed at one time that MnDOT would take the training center, to the south, but it has been decided not to take this property. Grimes said the new frontage road would be aligned between. the proposal and training center building, running south to the rear of the training center and in front of Lot 3. He said that along with. the highway reconstruction there would also be storm water improvements. Grimes said MnDOT is proposing to buyout the single family resident to the north and use this lot and the empty lot to the north for storm. water ponding. Grimes reviewed the site plan noting a number of issues. He said the underlying zoning of the PUD is commercial which is consistent with the original PUD plans. Grimes told the commission that a few years ago the HRA entertained the idea of rezoning this property to industrial, but decided not to because of the single-family residence to the north. Grimes talked about a calculation discrepancy regarding parking. He told the commission how the applicant calculated interior floor space and how the City defines interior floor space, which includes hallways and conference rooms, which determines the number of spaces for parking. He said the applicant believes they have enough parking and staff has determined there is a deficiency, and therefore, a variance for parking would be needed. Grimes reviewed the dedicated Hennepin County trail on outlot B which has never been met explaining that in 1985, it was decided the dedication requirement for the trail could happen after platting of the property. Grimes said unfortunately this "slipped through the cracks" and was never done. He said the applicant is aware of the dedication and would be part of this PUD. Pentel said she was unsure where the trail was going because of the wetland to the east of the proposal. Grimes talked about the trail being along the alignment of the new frontage road but would like to see the easement in place just in case Hennepin Parks changes its mind about `~ `~ a'° Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 7 the placement of the trail. He said the trail would extend to the south due to the steep sloping on the north side of the proposed property and because Hennepin Parks have had difficulty in getting an easement from the apartment property owner to the east. Pentel asked if MnDOT was confident where they would be placing the frontage road; Grimes said yes. Grimes suggested that there be a five or six foot sidewalk on the north side of the frontage road. Grimes next talked about the cross-parking agreement. He pointed out that in general there are approximately 35 parking spaces being used on Lot 3. He said he came to this conclusion by driving through the site several times to observe the parking situation. Pentel and Groger both commented on lack of parking when General Motors has training sessions noting that cars are parked in the street. Grimes commented that the applicant should not have to be burdened by the parking problem General Motors may create. Pentel pointed out that the applicant is asking for a variance for parking. Grimes commented if the taking by MnDOT does create parking problems for the General Motors site, MnDOT will then have to re- evaluate whether the General Motors site is inefficient for the area. MnDOT has commented that there is not a problem at this time with the General Motors building. Groger asked about parking on the proposed site stating that he sees only 112 parking spaces with 4 proof of parking. Grimes said that the applicant could review with the commission where the 8 proof of parking spaces would be located per the site plan. Groger said it seems odd that this is a PUD and part of the PUD (Lot 3) is being excluded. He said parking on Lot 3 is tight and will become tighter if the stairwells and walkways need to be enclosed. Grimes said Lot 3 is a separate lot as noted in the PUD Permit and can be addressed separately. He said the problem is that there are a number of non-conformities on the lot with setbacks and lack of parking and didn't know how including it in the proposal would solve any of its problems. Groger said considering it is all under one ownership it is a relevant issue when Lot 3 and the proposed development both have parking and setback issues. Pentel asked if both parking lots (Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 3) could be tied together. Grimes said the applicant's idea was to keep them separate. He said parking can be discussed by this body, but noted, that historically there has not been a parking problem. Grimes told the commission that the configurations of the proposal and Lot 3 are very odd and the proposed lot would need variances because of its shape. He said the ideal situation would have been to develop the entire area at one time. McAleese asked staff if MnDOT wasn't doing a "taking", how many variances would be required for this site. Grimes said he was not sure if it would meet setbacks along the front and to the north. The parking lot could probably be expanded more to the southwest if there were no "taking". Pentel asked the timeline for the highway construction and the proposed building construction. Grimes said MnDOT is starting construction in the area of Hwy. 55/100 in 1999 and the proposed building would be under construction this summer. ~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 8 Pentel briefly talked about the new light on Hwy. 55 and the limited amount of time available for cars to make it through the light. She has concerns about the traffic generated by people using residential streets to by-pass Hwy. 55 and 100 when they backup. Grimes said this concern should be addressed to the City Engineer and MnDOT. Pentel asked how many trips would be generated from this development per day. Grimes estimated by calculating the square footage of the building and number of people in the building, the total trips per day would be 400 to 500 trips over an 8 to 12 hour period. Pentel noted that with this development and a possible development on the old White House site there would be more traffic using the signal at Hwy. 55. Pentel asked about the lighting on the back of the building which would face the residential area. Grimes commented that there would be some type of lighting on the north side of the building for security purposes, but has not discussed this with the applicant. He said the residents to the north would see the building, especially during the winter months. Pentel asked about drainage on the site and eventually would the water drain toward the north. Grimes said the City wants to see the drainage tied to the pond to the North of the proposal, which MnDOT would be constructing. He said because construction of the building would occur before the construction of the pond, the drainage would have to go into the ditch system and then into the wetland area to the east. He continued by saying that there have been improve- ments to the Shaper ponds to help improve water quality before going into Sweeney Lake. McAleese asked how big a site needed to be before ponding is considered. Grimes said three acres. McAleese asked how big the site would be with the inclusion of Lot 3. Grimes said approximately 3-4 acres. Grimes said the applicant is proposing ways to filter storm water by using catch basins to catch grit in the storm sewers. McAleese asked if it was possible to create a pond on Lot 3 temporarily to alleviate any problems to the Shaper ponds. Grimes said that he could not address this issue. Grimes also commented that he discussed the storm water drainage with the City Engineer and Assistant Engineer and noted that they are very sensitive to how this drainage may affect Sweeney Lake. McAleese asked what the worse case scenario would be if the MnDOT pond was not constructed. Grimes said that other types of systems would need to be looked at in the catch basins. Groger commented that City Code notes that the minimum size for a parking stall is 9'x20' and most of the spaces on the proposed site are 9'x18'. Grimes noted that the site is very narrow from north to south and maybe the building could be made thinner to accommodate adequate parking stall size. Pentel asked about the location of the trash enclosures. Groger commented they are located in the basement of the garage area. Grimes noted the developer tried to enclose it. Grimes spoke about the 25 foot setback to the front of the building and told the commission that by moving the building closer to the frontage road, there would be more space on the north side. He noted that landscaping plans were enclosed. Pentel said that she wanted to make ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 9 sure there would be a fair amount of screening between the building and the residential area to the north. Grimes said staff could review the landscaping with Hennepin Parks or the City's forester. Darrell Anderson, 111 3~d Ave. So., Minneapolis, represented the applicant. Anderson said that he had heard a lot of questions being asked and believed it would be beneficial to the commission if they understood the entire project. He talked about Lot 3, noting that is was 90% occupied, 20-30 parking stalls are generally open, small tenants rent space on this site and not many trips are generated by these tenants. Anderson reviewed the site plan, talking about the trail easement on the north side. He stated that the trail has already been dedicated to the City, but the formal documents have not been registered. He also talked about the fire truck access around the building and the soils on the proposed site being poor. Anderson said on the north side of the building it would go down by a grade. Pentel questioned the elevation of the buildings. Anderson began to review the plans indicating different elevations than what was before the commission. He said the building had been redesigned and the commission did not have the revised plan in the packet sent to them. He talked about the berming on the north side with the foliage and said this would not be touched. Anderson talked about the parking plan and reviewed where the proof of parking would be located. He explained how the parking was calculated by reviewing the floor plan of what spaces were included in the calculations. Anderson said that through these calculations it was derived at that 125 parking spaces would be needed. He said the building would be occupied by smaller use tenants and the applicant is looking for the same kind of tenants as those on Lot 3 and believe it would be logical to conclude that this building should work the same way as the one on Lot 3. Anderson told the commission that they are not sure if the front curve, as shown on the site plan, is actually what MnDOT is proposing and need to verify MnDOT'S actual plans. Groger commented that the visual effect would look more like athree-story building. Anderson showed a landscape plan noting a berm on the front close to the building. He said that people entering on the east side would walk straight into the building, and on the west side would need to take a couple of steps up. He said it would present itself as a-two-story building. He said on the north side of the building it would go down a grade. Groger commented on the numerous setback variances being requested and would it be feas- ible to construct a smaller building. Anderson said economically it would not work on the site. Pentel asked if the trash would be enclosed; Anderson responded yes. Kapsner commented on how the applicant justified his parking spaces noting that the applicant did not include the atrium and agrees with this in that they are using less of the building, whereby the code uses the entire building. McAleese asked Anderson if they would be completing the process regarding the dedication of the trail easement; Anderson said this could be done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 10 Pentel asked about the lighting on the property and Anderson replied that that part of the project has not yet been designed. Anderson briefly noted the lighting would be the type that provided safe walking to and from the building and lighting on the building would be low so it wouldn't bother the neighbors. Prazak talked about the amount of parking on the site and noted 125 spaces. Anderson said there were 125 spaces without the eight proof of parking spaces. Kapsner said that there are actually 11 proof of parking spaces; Anderson said yes. Johnson asked about fire suppression on Lot 3. Grimes said that the original PUD says there will be fire suppression in the building on Lot 3 and this has never been taken care of. Grimes told Anderson that the applicant is encumbered by this fault on Lot 3 which is a code violation. Grimes also said that he has talked with the Chief of Fire and Inspections, Mark Kuhnly, who commented that the sprinkling of this building should be done. Anderson said that he doesn't believe this proposal should be encumbered by the requirements on Lot 3, but the applicant would be talking with staff concerning this issue. McAleese asked if staff had a copy of the new elevations. Anderson commented that they did not but would get that to staff. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Bonnie Mathis, 900 Angelo Drive, told the commission that she can seethe property from her home. She said she moved to this area because it was tranquil and had wild life, and believes the wild life should be protected. She also noted that because of the Shaper property development she now has a view of Hwy. 55 which has already changed the area. She is concerned about security and safety in her own home. She told the commission that they should look at this development in terms of esthetics, safety and the sounds that would be created with the reconstruction of Hwy. 100. Kapsner commented that the building would be constructed of stone on all four sides. Mathis said the building would not be attractive. Kapsner commented that it would not be made of cement blocks and that the building would act as a buffer for the area from the noise generated on the reconstructed Hwy. 100. He believes this would create a better situation than exists now. Sandy Robin, 920 Toledo, said she agreed with Mathis as far as the esthetics were concerned but is not sure that the building could be made more beautiful. She said she was more concerned with a buffer between the building and the residential homes to the north, and said what vegetation exists now is not enough. She believes the parking lot should be fully shielded from the homes and landscaping should be solid on the north side of the building. Pentel asked staff about shielding the neighborhood along Hwy. 100 with a sound wall. Grimes commented that there would be a sound wall along the east side of-Hwy. 100 abutting .residential properties. He questioned whether the church would want a sound wall in front of it. He also commented that KQRS, on the west side, would probably want to have a sound wall, but other businesses on that side of Hwy. 100 may not. Pentel asked what steps would need to be taken for a sound wall to be constructed. Grimes said he would talk with the City Engineer and then talk with MnDOT. Pentel commented that she fives in the area and the sound has increased dramatically because of the Shaper property project. ~~ ~~~ 6_~ .: ~r Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 11 Pentel said she was concerned with the property owners dedicating the supposedly trail, which may not go in, to the City which takes the responsibility for landscaping this area out of their hands. She said that most of the landscaping on the north side is deciduous and very small. She is concerned if the City acquires this land the applicant is only responsible for 10 feet, and there is something to be said about having dense screening along the north property line. She said she was also concerned with snow removal to the north side of the property. Grimes said language should be placed in the PUD Permit stating that if this trail, to the north of the lot, would be needed by Hennepin Parks, it would be given to the City or Hennepin Parks, otherwise it would remain in the property owner's hand and be used for landscaping. Kapsner commented to Pentel that Anderson said that the vegetation on the North side of the lot would stay and is she asking for more vegetation. Grimes reviewed the landscape plan saying that additional 6 foot Black Hills Spruce could be added in more places. Pentel commented that many office buildings leave its lights on at night and was there any possibility that the parking lot lights could be turned down. Anderson said that they would be on a time clock and could be turned down, but there would be a safety issue to consider. Grimes commented that it would be reasonable to turn the lights down on the north side of the building. Anderson also commented that residents should not see the lighting because of the box light fixture being used, in that the light lenses are highly directional and they do not create a glare. He said the lights on the building would be screened and could be controlled. Joe Antonucci, marketing agent for the project, believes that the project would be a positive thing for the neighborhood commenting on depressed railroad bed where people could traverse through. He said having activity in the area would only prohibit people from gathering in the area. McAleese asked how the tenant base would differ from that on Lot 3. Joe commented that there are 39 suites in the building on Lot 3, of which 35 are occupied. He said there is one management office, one conference room and one vacant room. He said they would differ in that the offices on Lot 3 are for single suites. Antonucci said tenants now want more space to allow for three or four people in an office. McAleese asked Antonucci his opinion about signage for the building. Antonucci commented that the building would have multi-tenant users and signage should be put inside the building; however, there must be some kind of signage for the site. Pentel commented on the existing signage noting that it was part of the old hotel site and quite large. Grimes commented the underlying zoning of this PUD is commercial and therefore could have quite a bit of signage. He said that the commission could say that the site is more consistent with a Business and Professional Office and suggest signage be permitted under that district. Pentel commented on the signage for the entire site which includes Lot 3, but noted that in some cases the applicant did not want to include Lot 3, such as parking. She questioned why Lot 3 is not part of this PUD. ~ ~, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 12 McAleese said that he does not want to rely on Lot 3 for parking because it may be redeveloped down the road and therefore cannot rely on across-parking agreement because they may need more parking. He said the commission should determine if there is enough parking on the proposed property. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner said that he believes there is adequate parking on the site and goes along with Anderson in that there is alot of square footage tied up with public space and the atrium. Groger talked about the space on the basement level noting that if a tenant wanted to use the conference room or storage room for office it could be done. Grimes commented that the PUD states that these areas would be used for storage and conference room space only. If the applicant should request this, staff would review the PUD and determine that it cannot be used for anything other than storage and a conference room. Pentel questioned the length of the stalls at 18 feet and the aisles at 24 foot. Grimes commented that the aisles could be made smaller to accommodate the required parking stall length. He said many cities now allow 18 feet vs. the City's requirement of 20 feet. Johnson asked how the dedication of the trail should be handled. Grimes said that he would like to talk with Rick Jacobson, Director of Park and Rec, to see. if it should be reserved for the future and used for landscaping for the next 15-20 years as long as it wasn't needed for the trail McAleese believes it might be better to dedicate the trail by easement. Grimes agreed and said that this would add more of setback on the north side. McAleese commented that this application only qualifies because it is an amendment to an existing PUD. Grimes said originally it was a PUD because there were two buildings on one lot. He said the problem is that once a PUD exists, its hard to do away with it. Grimes said that if this was not a PUD, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) would be reviewing it for variances. He believes through the PUD process the City has more control than the BZA. Pentel said that the number of variances bothers her along with the lack of landscape screening. She said she is not sure what will happen in the future concerning the trail, roads and ponding, and is not happy about the. drainage going to into a ditch and then eventually Sweeney Lake. Pentel said that if all three lots were taken into consideration, the applicant would have to look at ponding for the site. She believes the traffic problems at the lights on Hwy. 55 is timing and this can be worked out. Kapsner said that he agrees that the proposal is not a perfect solution but some of the items discussed are not the problem of the property. He said that there is an owner who has property zoned for commercial and wants to put a commercial building on the site. He believes this is a reasonable development. He believes this is a reasonable and workable solution for the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 13 Prazak said that the ownership of the "trail" property should be left with the existing owner and address additional landscaping on the north. McAleese said that he likes the proposed building and believes this is better than seeing an asphalt and weedy lot. He said he appreciated seeing the level of detailed plans submitted and made it easier for the commission to see what was being proposed. McAleese said that he could not support the proposal because of the number of variances being requested and that some of these variances are due to Lot 3 being left out of the proposal. He said philosophically, the parcel is zoned commercial and one should be able to build on it, but when they buy a parcel, they should know what they are buying, but this doesn't mean the City should throw out common sense. He believes that if the proposal included all the lots, the commission would be seeing something different. McAleese said if this proposal should go forward he would recommend that Condition No. 4 reflect floor and elevation changes and said the language in No. 6 is adequate. He said the issue of ponding and drainage needs to be date specific in case MnDOT does not do the ponding and suggested a new condition. Groger said he agreed with McAleese that he too is bothered by the fact that the commission is reviewing a proposal which doesn't include Lot 3. He said given the situation concerning the proposed lot he can see a need for variances but there are too many variances being requested. Groger said there are parking issues and questioned where MnDOT would be placing the frontage road. He said there were too many problems with the proposal and would be voting against it. Johnson also said that she was concerned about Lot 3 not being included in this proposal. She finds the plans submitted very well rendered, but there needs to be more landscaping on the north side and reservation of the trail dedication. She believes this is a good use for a piece of undeveloped property. Pentel said that she was concerned with setbacks seeing a lot of pavement and building going into these areas. She believes something good could be built on this site if Lot 3 were included. She agreed with other commissioners that the renderings were quite well done. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Prazak to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 with the following conditions: 1. The site plan prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated February 16, 1998 shall be part of this approval 2. The grading and utility plans prepared by Howard R. Green Engineers and dated 2/26/98 shall be come a part of this approval. 3. The landscape plans for the site prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated 2/16/98 shall be come a part of this approval. 13 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Page 14 4. The amended floor and elevation plans prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated shall be become a part of this approval. (To be supplied at a later date) 5. All conditions related to Lot 3 found in Amendment No. 1 to PUD No. 42 shall become a part of this approval 6. The developer provide the City of Golden Valley an easement or title to the north 13 feet of the property in order to provide the trail right-of-way for the future Hennepin Parks bike trail. 7. The developer is to provide some type of drainage or ponding on the site if MnDOT does not construct its pond north of the proposal by . (To be determined later.) 8. The developer must provide a fire suppression system acceptable to the Fire Marshall in the office building on Lot 3 within six months of the approval of the second PUD amendment. 9. The developer shall provide additional landscaping on the north side of the property to be reviewed and approved by City staff. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Building Review. 10. Signage for the site should comply with that of the Business and Professional Office District. 11. The developer shall provide 125 parking spaces on the site with 11 "proof of parking" spaces. The vote was 3 to 3 (one commissioner absent).. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given. V. Other Business A. Land Use Plan -Presentation by the Subcommittee Pentel requested that this item be tabled to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission due to the lateness of the hour. VI. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting a 1