Loading...
04-27-98 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 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, April 27, 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 Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -March 23, 1998 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 23, 1998 minutes as submitted with the spelling correction of Martens name. II. Election of Officers MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to re-elect Paula Pentel as Chairperson and Emilie Johnson as Secretary, and elect Robert Shaffer as Vice-Chairperson. III. Informal Public Hearing -Preliminary Design Plan -Room and Board Properties, P.U.D. No. 79 Applicant: Room and Board Properties Address: 4600, 4650, and 4680 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 79 - to allow for more than one building on a lot and allow for outlet sales on weekends. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of his report to the Planning Commission. He reviewed where the proposed property is located on a city map. He then showed a colored rendering of where the buildings are located on the property. Grimes told the commission that the building at 4650 Olson Memorial Highway (OMH) was just purchased and the applicant would now like to consolidate all three properties onto one lot. He said the buildings would consist of warehousing, office, design studios and weekend outlet sales. Grimes told the commission that staff has continuously talked with Room and Board (R and B) over the years concerning their weekend sales and staff advised R and B to seek a PUD for the site. He said the PUD would also allow themto have more than one structure on the lot. Grimes said that the applicant is proposing to connect all the buildings through a proposed expansion process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 2 Grimes next talked about the plans that were submitted included short and long term building plans that included three phases. The first phase would allow the building at 4680 OMH to be used for retail sales on weekends only. He commented that R and B has already made interior changes to this building and is using it now for its weekend sales. Grimes said that there was a misunderstanding between staff and R and B on when the sales could begin. R and B have submitted a letter stating that they would eliminate the outlet sales use if the City Council so decided. Grimes said the second phase would consist of additions between the buildings and the third phase would include the construction of a rather large addition behind the building located at 4650 OMH. He said because staff would not know what is exactly being proposed in the next two to five years, R and B would need to bring each phase back to the City Council for review. Grimes said R and B is proposing that the second phase go straight to the Council. He suggested that the third phase is too far in the future and because staff is not sure what these plans would look like, the applicant would have to be an amendment to the PUD. Grimes talked about staff recommendations saying that the outlet sales would only be permitted on weekends. He said staff is against any signage other than the words Room and Board -there should be no mention about weekend outlet sales. He said that this is consistent with the Baby & Teen signage located along I-394. Grimes talked about the immediate attention of continuing the fire lane around the east building. He also briefly spoke about seeing a surface water plan prior to construction in any of the phases that may have some future limiting aspects on the construction of additional buildings. He said staff would need to look at the potential of having some on-site ponding. Commissioner Kapsner asked how it came about that retail sales started on this site. Grimes commented. that there have been retail sales at this site before he started with the City. As he stated before, staff has talked with R and B over the years about the retail sales and in the last several years talked to them about there being- the possibility of acquiring HRA land to the east and running the campus with a PUD Permit. He said staff has not received complaints about the retail sales operation, but noted that the City Council does have the right to limit or eliminate the use of the outlet sales. Commissioner Martens asked staff if they knew there was a sign on the building concerning the retail sales. Grimes said that staff just became aware of it through the Inspections Department and they have issued an order to remove the sign. Commissioner Johnson said her concern is that these outlet sales are not permitted and how are they allowed to keep going, and is it because there have been no complaints. Grimes said there have been errors committed by staff and R and B regarding the continuation of the outlet sales. He again noted that R and B talked about doing a PUD at the time of expansion. He said there has always been the understanding that the outlet sales should be addressed with the expansion. Martens commented that if there were signage on all three building, it would be helpful to know where the weekend retail sales are being held. Grimes commented that it is up to the commission and council to determine if this type of sign should be permitted. City Planner ~% , ~_ Minutes of the Golden Valley. Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 3 Beth Knoblauch commented that the signage could be augmented by putting a sign up that says "customer parking", thereby foregoing any retail signage. Grimes said that staff does not want to set a precedent about having retail sales in the Industrial Zoning District. Chair Pentel asked if the chain link fence is locked where the fire lane is to be located. Grimes said that the Fire Department probably has a key and this is acceptable. Commissioner McAleese asked whether the zoning code defines this type of store. Grimes said that it does not, that some time ago the code was changed to allow temporary retail sales in Industrial areas. McAleese asked if other cities have language about retail sales in IndustrialZoning Districts. He pointed out the MGM Liquor Warehouse store by Menards and suggested that the City would probably be getting more requests for retail sales in Industrial districts. McAleese suggested the PUD permit state what kind of items Room and Board can sell and the hours of operation. Pentel suggested that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for retail sales in the Industrial district. Knoblauch said that a CUP is not required but a special permit is needed for these temporary retail sales. Grimes said these temporary retail sales permits are administratively issued. Martens asked staff if tonight's recommendation is for a lot consolidation and to permit weekend retail sales. He asked if it would be appropriate to seek these approvals and have no concept approvals go forward, but have these as amendments to the PUD when additional details are available and presented. Grimes said if the commission is recommending this, that would be okay- with staff. Grimes said that R and B is requesting Preliminary Design approval regarding the phases of development and when the second and third phase were constructed this would only go to the City Council Martens commented that the concept plan looks okay. He continued by saying that there are other issues the applicant has not addressed and questioned how the commission could deal with this if the details with the future additions are not being presented. Pentel asked about ponding on the site. Grimes said that he could not address ponding at this time. Martens asked about direct access off of OMH and would this be allowed. Grimes said that MnDOT has purchased all access rights along Hwy. 55. He said access would be from the Ottawa traffic signal and around the hotel and back down because the service road is not connected to Ottawa anymore. Knoblauch commented that this site abuts a state highway and staff is required to notify MnDOT. She said the MnDOT comments have not yet been received, but would probably have comments about access to the site. Knoblauch recommended that the MnDOT comments be made a part of the recommendations. Commissioner Groger asked staff about the northeast outlot in the North Wirth Redevelopment Area. Grimes said that the HRA owns this land. He said staff is talking with Breck School about the property located to the front of this outlot and they may want to use a small portion of the outlot for parking. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 4 Daryl Fortier, 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, is the architect for Room and Board Properties. He reviewed what R and B did as a business and what the buildings would be used for: headquarters, photo shoot operation, office and weekend retail sales. He said the sale items are furniture that did not do well, or needed some kind of slight repair. He said an outside photographer would come in for about one month using the photo shoot area taking pictures of its product. He said this particular part of the operation affects the parking considerations. Fortier said in the past this area was used for office use. Fortier said the applicant, through the PUD process, is seeking consent to have more than one building on a lot and weekend outlet sales for damaged and repaired furniture or discontinued furniture. He said that he is unsure also when the retail sales started on this site. He also presented a concept plan for future development. He talked about a variance for off-street parking, commenting on the amount of parking needed for the future and what is being used presently. The applicant feels that parking, even with the expansion, would be adequate. Fortier believes that the parking requirements of City Code are unusually high for warehouse uses in general and compared what parking ratios are for other cities. He said that the majority of parking would be to the rear of the buildings and that there would limited parking in the front which would make this area look neat. Fortier said that it would be helpful to have a pylon sign to show where the retail sales would be located instead of driving throughout the site. He said this sign could be permanent or temporary for weekend use. He said the applicant is willing to work with staff on this issue. Fortier said he is unsure about ponding and storm water management and whether the proposed additions could be built if ponding was required. He said that they are not expecting approval of landscaping, building and ponding plans tonight but are seeking approval of the outlet sales and consolidation of properties. He would like some guidance from staff concerning the parking. Fortier talked about the curb and gutter and agreed with staff that as construction moved along so would construction of curb and gutter. He said there is an issue with curb and gutter on the east side of the property with the fire lane. Fortier said that if R and B puts in the curb and gutter when the fire lane is constructed, it would then need to be torn out when parking was put in on that side. He said curb and gutter would then need to be reconstructed which can get quite costly. Fortier requested a bituminous edge along the fire lane until they are reasonably sure where parking would be located on the east side. Fortier said the issue of storm water management was an oversight on their part. He said he is not quite sure what the water quality issues are and would need to work with staff on this issue. Groger asked if the outlet store square footage would decrease over the years; Fortier commented that it already has. Groger said that he would feel more comfortable if a limit of how much floor space could be used for the outlet store so it cannot expand. Fortier said that this would be a reasonable request to limit it to the 4680 building. I<apsner asked how many employees were located on site. Fortier said about 45 in office type uses and another 40 in warehouse type uses. ~~ a ..~:; Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 5 Kapsner next asked how many parking spaces are on the site; Fortier said 250 parking spaces. Grimes said that. there is another 250 proof of parking spaces for a total of 500. Fortier said there would be 586 parking spaces with proof of parking. Grimes said this is without doing any water quality and this would need to be looked at. Kapsner asked if the applicant increased the building to 235,000 sq.ft. would there be adequate parking with proof of parking. Grimes said looking at the five-year plan it appears R and B can meet the parking .requirements, assuming no ponding is required. Fortier said the projections given to staff are higher than needed. Kapsner asked if parking was added to the east side of the property could the side setback be maintained; Fortier said it could. Martens asked Fortier about his parking calculations of one space per 500 being reasonable for the five-year plan but beyond this, R and B is suggesting a one to 1000 ratio. Fortier said that was correct and believes that the City's parking ratio is very demanding and has reviewed what other cities are using. Kapsner asked Fortier how the sign got erected without a permit. Fortier said that he was unaware of the sign being up; he believes it is reasonable to have signage on this site. Kapsner commented that the way the sign reads now, anyone could go shopping at the outlet store at any time. He said there is an issue of trust involved and the commission wants to know that after three or five years, that the company is doing exactly what it said it was going to do. Fortier said that he would work with staff on this issue but believes the sign is needed. Pentel asked if the proposed Phase II green space could be part of Phase I. Fortier said they are hopeful of doing the connection between the 4600 and 4650 building in the next couple of months, at which time the green space would be done with curb and gutter. He was unsure what would happen to the parking lot located more to the southwest. Shaffer asked about the future parking area to the north of the outlet sales noting there were two tower sites located in this area. Fortier reviewed the site plan where the towers are located, noting that one is in the parking lot and the other located to the north of the parking lot on a hill. Grimes said parking goes right up to the cell tower in the parking lot. Martens asked about signage for the property, being temporary or permanent could it be a vertical type along the front rather than on the building. Fortier said it would not have to go on the building. Knoblauch said that directional signage is not included in the calculation of square footage for signage. Grimes said that .hours of operation are considered nondirectional signage. He suggested all that customers need to know is that parking is in the rear. Pentel suggested that the hours of operation be posted on the door. Grimes said he believes there is an issue of staging and asked if he is hearing from the commission that if this first phase were approved, any subsequent stages would need to be an amendment to the PUD. If R and B want to do something additional, they would have to request an amendment in order for the commission to be able to review updated plans including landscaping and drainage issues. Pentel said that was correct. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 6 Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner said that he had no problem with combining the properties, that this is something that could work well for R and B and the City. He said he had a couple other concernse Groger said that he had a legal question in that the City can create PUD's but how does one go about eliminating a PUD. He asked that through the platting of the PUD one lot is created, that if the PUD is abolished would the property remain as one. Knoblauch said it would unless it is replatted. She continued by saying that platting is concurrent with the PUD process and that the applicant has six months to file the plat with Hennepin County. Grimes commented that staff has discussed what would happen to the plat if the PUD was eliminated because the plat bears the name "PUD". Staff would probably want to have this removed from the plat. Groger said with this understanding he has no problems with the consolidation of the lots, but would like to see any future adjustments to the site come before the Planning Commission, and would also like to see limited square footage for the retail sales. Martens said that he agrees with comments already made and would like to see retail sales limited to 20,000 sq.ft., which is the size of the 4680 building. He also commented that he would like to see a permanent sign, with landscaping around it and perpendicular to Hwy. 55. Pentel also said that she has no problems with the request, but would like to see no signs on the site referring to an outlet store and that each stage of development would require an amendment to the PUD. She said that language in staff's recommendation No. 1 should reflect that any changes to the site would need an amendment to the PUD. She added that language include weekend retail sales be limited to the 4680 building, state that only specific R and B furniture can be sold, and the hours of operation. She said that she does not have a problem with the a bituminous curb at this time, but when the applicant comes in with an amendment to the PUD, the curb and gutter will need to be constructed. McAleese questioned what was the first phase. Pentel said consolidation of the properties and the permitted use of the outlet sales on weekends. Grimes added, and continuation of the fire lane on the east side of the property. McAleese said that he agrees with the first phase and can support this. He said staff's recommendation No. 4, regarding the blacktopping and curb and gutter around the building for the fire lane, should be date certain and suggested one year out. Grimes said that if R and B's plans changed, things could get delayed for two years. Grimes suggested that they make the driveway wider to accommodate future parking. Pentel suggested they have one year to put in curb and gutter. McAleese suggested that the language in staff's recommendation No. 1 be changed regarding staged development. Grimes agreed saying that any future changes will need to be an amendment to the PUD. McAleese suggested that a No. 7 be added that states R and B will comply with all City, State, and Federal regulations that may resolve the issue of trust. He said on the issue of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 7 retail space he agrees with limiting this space and limiting the retail sales to surplus and blemished items. McAleese said on the issue of parking and future development, every developer says that the city's parking requirements are too strict. He said the commission is willing to listen to their argument at sometime in the future, but at this point he could not waive all the parking requirements established when there is additional square footage proposed for the future. Grimes added that we have used proof of parking and the City does- not want to see any more blacktop than needed. Pentel asked if there are any safety issues concerning the cell tower on the site. Grimes said that the Inspections Department is not that concerned with the tower site in that they are designed very well. McAleese asked about a condition concerning the MnDOT comments. Johnson said that she supports the lot consolidation, but reluctantly the outlet sales. She believes this is condoning something that has been illegal for sometime and that the City is partly to blame. She wanted to make it clear that the commission was not rewarding someone, by recommending approval, for doing something illegal. She said there is an issue of trust, that if the commission recommends approval; R and B has to follow the rules. Johnson said she likes the idea of R and B having to amend its PUD when they pursue their next phase which will help the City make sure they have followed the rules. She said the City must follow up when restrictions are placed on a property. Kapsner commented that R and B is a very good corporate business and it's very difficult to look for a fight when nobody is complaining about the weekend retail sales. Grimes commented that staff must react quicker to situations like the outlet sales through negotia- tions, and generally have been able to do this. John Gabbert requested to be heard and Chair Pentel allowed him the opportunity. Gabbert commented on the issue of trust. He said that he considers the business to be a good corporate neighbor and that he had no instructions that said signage could not be put up. Gabbert said that his weekend customers were confused where to go, but would take the sign down. He then addressed the retail sales commenting that the City has known for a long time about these sales. He said that he is aware that it is an illegal use, but always had the understanding that this issue could be worked out. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Room and Board's request to consolidate the properties and to allow for weekend outlet sales with the following conditions: 1. The proposed development would allow for the operation of the outlet store for the sale of furniture affiliated with Room and Board, excluding any new furniture, on Saturday (10am to 6pm) and Sunday (12-5pm), and limited to no more than 20,000 sq.ft. The approval includes the consolidation of the three properties located at 4600, 4650 and 4680 Olson Memorial Highway into one lot. Any changes to the PUD would require an amendment. ~,~_ `,- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 8 2. All signage to meet the requirements of the sign code for the Industrial Zoning District and that there be no sign on the site which refers to an outlet store or retail operation, other than on the door going into the 4680 building. 3. If it is determined that additional parking is needed during any stage of development, the owner would be required to construct additional parking up to the amount required by the Zoning Code at the request of the Chief of Fire and Inspections. This shall be done within a reaonsable time period. 4. The fire lane around the 4600 building be constructed to include parking, with a bituminous curb to begin with and concrete curb and gutter be constructed at a time when an amendment to the PUD is requested or within one year of approval of the General Plan of Development, whichever is sooner. 5. All new and upgraded parking areas must be constructed with concrete curb and gutter. 6. The owner shall meet all requirements of the City's surface water plan prior to the construction of any new buildings or parking lot. This would require additional engineering information be submitted to the City Engineer. 7. Any comments from MnDOT be made a part of the PUD permit. 8. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Kapsner reported on the City Council meeting of April 21, 1998 regarding the amendment to the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42. He said that this item would be coming back to the Planning Commission to address certain items. This would not be considered an informal public hearing item. Kapsner told the commission that the City Council told some residents, whose streets were being addressed, to come back to the Council with plans for their streets. McAleese commented that he attended the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998 where most of the items were continued to a later date. He said the Council did talk about signage on the buildings for the Area-1 site. V. Other Business A. Review of Attendance. Pentel commented that Planning Commissioners attendance was very good. ~~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 9 B. Guest Speaker Grimes and Knoblauch suggested having Crime Prevention Specialist Joanne Paul come and talk about crime prevention in the City. C. Meeting times Grimes informed the commission that its second regularly scheduled meeting falls on Memorial Day. He suggested that an item may be coming into the office which will need to be heard. as soon as possible and suggested June 1. VI. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:35pi 1