Loading...
05-11-98 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 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, May 11, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, McAleese and Shaffer; absent was Johnson. (Note: Commissioner Martens was a representative for PUD 42; and therefore, did not join the commission on the dais.) Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -April 27, 1998 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 27, 1998 minutes as submitted. II. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Citv Council and .Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner Groger commented on the BZA meeting. No other reports were given. III. Other Business A. North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 (Amendment No. 1) Item referred to the Commission from the Council for Discussion Pentel commented to the Planning Commission that the City Council had referred the amendment to P.U.D. No. 42 back to the Planning Commission to comment only on five items of concern. She said that when it goes back to the City Council it will be a "continued" public hearing. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, told the commission that there was a minor correction on page three (3) of his report. The last sentence of item 4 states "Lot 3 will have to be included in a new plat for the PUD that would be submitted as part of the General Plan." Grimes told the commission that Lot 3 does not need to be included in this PUD plat, but Lot 3 would be addressed in the PUD Permit. Rick Martens, project developer for this PUD, introduced Linda Fisher, representing the applicant. Ms. Fisher's address is 1500 NW Finance Center, Minneapolis MN. ~- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Fisher briefly stated that the architect and civil engineer on this project were also in attendance. She commented that changes have been made to the plan twice since the plan was reviewed by the Commission on March 9, 1998; the changes the second time around were partly due to a meeting with staff, MnDOT and others regarding the site. She said the original plan called fora 48,000 sq.ft., 3-story building and,after the second change the building was reduced to 31,500 sq.ft. because of the removal of the lowest level of the building. Fisher said this constituted a 30% reduction in building size which is much less than code requires. She said the reduced building height would minimize the impact on the neighborhood to the north. She said there is also less parking required and the plans submitted include some proof of parking. The parking, Fisher said, now meets code requirements. Fisher said there are substantially fewer variances being requested -those remaining are for the front yard building and parking setback and are justified because of the configuration of the lot and the MnDOT taking. Fisher commented that one of the major concerns of the Council and Commission was water retention and treatment. She said the revised plan now shows on-site ponding. She commented that the revised plan also includes a preliminary lighting plan and there is a revised landscape plan submitted on a preliminary basis. Fisher then reviewed the five points as highlighted in Director Grimes' memo as noted below: 1. Lighting. Fisher said there should be no spill over or glare from the lights, and the applicant would work with staff regarding the timing mechanisms for night lighting. She commented that this project is no different that similar ones that have outdoor lighting. 2. Drainage. Fisher said there has been an extensive coordination between the developer, the City, MnDOT, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission regarding the drainage on the site. Fisher commented that when the developer first approached MnDOT about using its proposed pond to the north, MnDOT felt there would be enough ponding available to allow water run-off from this development. She said they now have new information which makes them believe this tie-in would not work. She said the developer is confident that with the proposed two ponds on the site, Level I and Level II treatment can be obtained to enhance water quality. 3. Impact of Traffic. Fisher commented that this property is guided and zoned for commercial uses, and the developer does not see any appreciable traffic impacts. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 1998 Page 3 4. Inclusion of Lot 3. Fisher commented that Lot 3 is included in P.U.D. No. 42 Permit, but that it is not in the PUD amendment because there are no physical changes being made to this site. 5. Landscaping. Fisher said a revised landscape plan is included in the agenda packet. She pointed out there would be landscaping around the building and ponds and a good amount of landscaping to the north side which would help screen the building from the neighbors. She highlighted the fact that due to a NSP easement, the plantings in the easement cannot grow any taller than 25 feet. Fisher said, in summary, the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning and standards for the Preliminary Design Plan approval. She said that the concerns of the Commission and Council have been addressed. Pentel expressed to the Commission that the Council is only looking for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Kapsner said that he had no comments specifically, but had a general comment saying that the developer has gone to great lengths to meet the items the Commission were concerned about. Pentel agreed with Kapsner that the developer had worked out many of the details. Pentel asked about the drainage ponds and where they would drain to. Grimes said that water would collect into the two ponds and then drain into the ditch along the railroad track, and then eventually into Sweeney Lake. He added that the ponding would meet all City water quality and detention requirements. Pentel asked if the ponds would have water in them at all times: Christopher Bolt, Civil Engineer for Howard R. Green, said the ponds would be wet ponds meaning there would always be water in them. Pentel said the ponds would be a nice amenity to the site. Grimes commented that Interim Public Works Director, Jeff Oliver, would like to see more rip-rap (rocks) around the outlet of the ponds, which can be worked out. Commissioner Shaffer asked if the asphalt, where the MnDOT taking is (at the southwest corner of the site), would be torn up. Bolt commented that MnDOT's entrance ramp would cut through this area, but was unsure if the asphalt would be removed. Pentel commented that quite a bit of weedy growth is coming up through the asphalt. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 1998 Page 4 Pentel commented that she agreed with staff on the projected number of trips being generated by the building not having a major impact on the area. Grimes said there may need to be some adjustment to the timing of the lights on Ottawa. . Commissioner Groger commented that he had the most difficulty with the exclusion of Lot 3 in the replatting, but with the proposed building being decreased in size and the elimination of some variances, he said he could accept the proposal. He briefly commented on Lot 3 and its nonconformities and the difficulty in separating Lot 3 from the proposed development. Pentel asked about the 5 acre threshold of Bassett Creek, regarding the ponding issue, and whether the City can have its own threshold. Grimes said that the City could place conditions on the PUD regarding the ponding threshold. He said the Council is requesting to see ponding on the site as if it were a larger site. Pentel commented that the exclusion of Lot 3 is an issue with her, particularly when its a PUD and has one owner. Grimes said that the Lot 3 issues would be addressed in the PUD Permit. Pentel asked Grimes to comment on the discussion about fire suppression and the stairwells which was addressed in the PUD Permit. Grimes commented that there are some letters in the Inspections file which discusses the stairwell. He said that he would go back and review the information in the file. Kapsner commented that a bigger concern was the lack of parking spaces and the developer has now addressed this issue. Pentel commented that the PUD Permit amendment needs to be cleaned up and reflect what is relevant now. Pentel said that she was impressed with the landscaping plan. Grimes requested the architect to show the elevation rendering. Darrell Anderson, Architect, commented that the original plan showed a retaining wall around the building which is now non-existent. He reviewed the north side of the building, noting that the lower level has been eliminated. Anderson said the row of hedges would cover the lower windows on the north side. He then reviewed the landscaping plan noting the height of plantings. He said the sumac on the north side of the property line would not be maintained by the developer. Anderson briefly talked about the proposed plantings around the ponding areas. Pentel asked about sidewalks. Grimes commented that this would be included as part of the Hennepin County trail system along the frontage road. Pentel suggested that this be addressed by the sidewalk committee. She said people from the proposed and existing business offices would probably use the sidewalks to get to Schaper Park. Pentel questioned whether this would be adequate for both walkers and bikers. City Planner Beth Knoblauch commented that a sidewalk should e~.§ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 1998 Page 5 probably not be constructed at this time because it would be torn out again when MnDOT did their work. Grimes said he would talk with the Engineering Department about this issue. He said he would like to see what the trail looks like and believes that the 12-foot trail can accommodate both walkers and bikers. Groger asked where the trash enclosure would be placed. Anderson said it would be located along the north side of the building. Groger suggested keeping it more to the west end of the building away from the view of the neighbors to the north. Anderson agreed. Grimes noted that the enclosure would be constructed with the same materials as the building Commissioner McAleese commented that there was some question, when the proposal was first submitted, about how staff and the applicant was measuring square footage. Grimes said that the applicant is now measuring gross square footage as required by code. McAleese commented that the plan has changed significantly enough and questioned whether the Planning Commission should not be holding an informal public hearing as required by State law. He said he was uncomfortable with this meeting tonight not being held as an informal public hearing. McAleese said that although he was uncomfortable with the process he is delighted with the developers end result of the project. Grimes commented that it was the City Council who referred this item back to the Commission for comments only. McAleese said he understood that, but the Council has not seen the plan which is before the Commission tonight. He said that the procedure taken on this proposal may not work next time. Pentel agreed that she approved of it coming back but would have like to seen is as an informal public hearing. Kapsner commented that the commission is not discussing any new issues and that if they wouldn't have made such dramatic changes, the commission wouldn't be having this discussion. McAleese agreed, but said the process involved with right now is what is troublesome. He said the plan before them does not resemble the original plan. There was further discussion about whether or not the Planning Commission should have held another informal public hearing on this matter. Staff said they would look into the process for future items. Grimes said that he does not expect a vote on this and will forward their comments onto the Council. 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 1998 Page 6 B. Discussion with Mayor Anderson concerning TwinWest Representation on Golden Valley Boards and Commission Mayor Anderson told the Commission that she meets with TwinWest on a regular basis and they have approached her to find out if the City Council would change its policy regarding appointments to the Boards and Commissions. She said that business owners in Golden Valley would like to be considered for these appointments even though they do not live in the City. Some commissioners responded by saying that they feel that there already exists a wide range of business people on the various Boards and Commissions. Mayor Anderson said that TwinWest would like to be more involved in the City. City Planner Knoblauch thought it may be worthwhile for a group of business people to comment on the City's zoning code. C. Discussion Initiated by McAleese Concerning Cell Towers in Residential Areas. McAleese told staff that he has been receiving phone calls concerning the cellular tower sited off of Douglas and St. Croix Avenue. He said that the commission had looked at smaller devices that would not obstruct a residential view and would like the Commission to address this issue formally. Knoblauch commented that .unfortunately in the City of Golden Valley there are few places where towers can be constructed and not have residential areas on some side. Director Grimes commented that the smaller type devices are used on taller buildings which the City does not have. Grimes also commented that a consultant for the City is now reviewing cell tower and digital coverage in the City of Golden Valley. McAleese said he believes the hearing process would be good. IV. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:10pm. 1