Loading...
07-27-98 PC Minutes~ /~. _~ 1 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 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, July 27, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Shaffer at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, .Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer; absent was Pentel. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -July 13, 1998 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 13, 1998 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -Subdivision -Golden Hills West 4th Addition Applicant: Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Address: That area bounded by Laurel Avenue on the north, I-394 on the south, Colorado Avenue on the west, and the CyberOptics and Holiday Inn Express on the east, and also Lot 2, Block 1, Glenway Slopes 4th Addition and the parcel of land immediately to the west, both lying north of Laurel Avenue Request: To consolidate and then subdivide the properties south of Laurel Avenue, which will then be sold for redevelopment. The properties lying north of Laurel Avenue are not part of any redevelopment efforts. They are included only to clear up errors in the way the property boundaries are described, to officially establish the limits of Laurel Avenue, and provide for a clear map of some important utility easements that exist only as written document descriptions. City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave a summary of the proposed subdivision. Knoblauch explained which lots and parcels of land compose the subdivision noting the lot and parcel to the north of Laurel Avenue and the lots and parcels to the south of Laurel. She reviewed a colored map and talked about the lot and parcel north of Laurel and why they were included in the platting process which was to clear up errors in the way the property boundaries are described, to establish the limits of Laurel Avenue, and to provide for a clear map of utility easements that exist only as written document descriptions. She said there is no description of where Laurel Avenue lies and the subdivision would provide these descriptions. She said that utility companies are putting more utilities in the right-of-way and without the description it is difficult to know where the public street ends. Knoblauch next reviewed where there are drainage and utility easements running across these parcels and that a very wordy legal description now exists; the subdivision would eliminate some of the description. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 2 Knoblauch next talked about asix-inch gap along the east side of the property and athree- inch gap on the west side of the property. She said the gap probably was not detected many years ago and now with computerization more accurate surveys are being done. Knoblauch also noted that the City acquired this property in the 70's. She said the City agreed to not connect Laurel Avenue to Brunswick, they city would never redevelop the property, and if the city did not need either of the properties they would be returned to the original owner or their heirs. Commissioner McAleese asked if the parcels of land on either side of these two parcels had been platted. Knoblauch said the outlot to the west is not platted. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the old drainage ditch is still being maintained. Knoblauch said she doesn't believe the county is maintaining the ditch, although it is still on record. Kapsner asked if the city sold the land back to the original owners, would the land be marketable because of the drainage ditch. Knoblauch commented that the ditch issue would have to be worked out. Commissioner Martens asked if the north right of way line is now behind the curb on Laurel. Knoblauch said that it is behind the sidewalk on the north side of Laurel. Knoblauch next reviewed the remaining subdivision south of Laurel Avenue. She reviewed the plat noting what is located on the site now. She reviewed existing streets and divided parcels, which some of were never platted. She reviewed where Golden Hills Drive would be located, noting that there would be a development to the north and south of Golden Hills Drive, which would be considered the frontage road. She said that the Holiday Inn Express would have access from its site through the new lot to the west and along the east side of their property past the pond. Commissioner Martens asked if the railroad tracks would remain off of Laurel. Knoblauch said yes that Liberty Carton uses the tracks. Commissioner Groger asked if Holiday Inn Express would have street access and if not is that a problem. Knoblauch said this is something the city would prefer not to happen but it can be done and in-this case by routing a road past the pond, Golden Hills Drive could be designed more efficiently. She said the city could turn over the pond lot and maintain an easement so that the Holiday Inn could have frontage. Planning Director Mark Grimes commented that the city has been working with the owner of the Holiday Inn Express and he believes his access would be just as good or better with the proposal because of access from Colorado and along the pond to Golden Hills Drive. Knoblauch commented that the city wants properties to have access to streets but in this case the site would have two access points to the street system. Kapsner asked how the city plans on maintaining the pond in that this area could be a pretty impressionable entry into the hotel site. Knoblauch commented that there needs to be .~ C 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 3 some finishing touches to the pond and that it may be possible to present the pond in a more desirable fashion such as using colored stone. She said she was unsure whether this pond was meant to be natural or manicured. Grimes noted that the city would maintain the pond. He added that there would be landscaping along the sides and common signage is being proposed for the entire area. Vice-Chair Shaffer opened the informal public hearing. Bill Hume, 320 Brunswick Avenue South, commented that he was one of the original partners that sold the land to Golden Valley. He said he was unclear about where Laurel Avenue ended and about the gaps, and requested the city to review the new plat with him. Glen Eiden, 345 Brunswick Avenue South, is concerned about Laurel Avenue not becoming the frontage road for I-394 and that there would be no opening from Colorado Avenue to the north. Vice Chair Shaffer closed the informal public hearing. Grimes commented that an I-394 traffic study is being done. He believes that traffic will use Golden Hills Drive which would divert traffic to the south off of Colorado Avenue and alleviating traffic use on Laurel Avenue. He agreed there is traffic on Laurel and the city is concerned about this movement on Laurel through the residential area toward Winnetka. Grimes said that staff, the surveyor and Mr. Humes could meet to go over the survey. Commissioner Johnson said the replatting addresses housekeeping issues. She said she likes the idea of Golden Hills Drive proceeding through the middle of the plat which would move traffic and keep it from Laurel Avenue. Kapsner agreed saying that the city is trying to maintain traffic on the frontage road and take traffic off of Laurel. He believes this is a good plan. Groger also agreed but has a concern that the Holiday Inn Express will not have street frontage. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Golden Hills West 4th Addition. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review -Golden Hills Business Park. P.U.D. No. 78 Applicant: MEPC American Properties, Inc. (Name changed to Duke Realty, Limited Partnership) Minutes of the Golden Valley. Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 4 Address: 5900 Golden Hills Drive and the Southeast Corner of Laurel Avenue and Colorado Avenue Request: Review Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 78 to establish atwo- building office/light industrial campus; the existing CyberOptics building at 5900 Golden Hills Drive will remain in place, with a new building to be constructed on the westerly half of the site. City Planner Knoblauch reviewed her memo to the Commission saying that this site includes part of the area to be platted and the existing CyberOptics building. She said the overall site is 7.5 acres. The proposal is to construct a building, mirroring the image of the CyberOptics building and laying it out in the opposite direction. The proposed building is under 80,000 sq.ft. whereas the CyberOptics building is 90,000 sq.ft. She said the two lots are being designed to operate in a campus setting. The developer plans on maintaining both sites. Knoblauch said that the preliminary plans are adequate to consider Duke's request for a PUD. She then reviewed three categories for planning consideration as follows: Zoning. Knoblauch said zoning requirements come close to meeting regular zoning standards. She noted the CyberOptics building went in under regular zoning. Duke is requesting a zero lot line for the east property line so parking would be on both sides of the property with no green space. She said they would also share a driveway into both sites from Golden Hills Drive. Knoblauch said the west property line would need a variance because code requires a 70-foot wide street with new subdivisions in the Industrial Zoning District. Colorado Avenue is currently 60 feet, thereby requiring the applicant to ask fora 5-foot setback variance from the subdivision code. She said the other 5 feet would come from the west side of Colorado Avenue. Knoblauch said that on the north side (residential) of the proposed vacant lot, the setback is 75 feet. She said the berm that exists on the CyberOptics site running along Laurel Avenue would be continued on the vacant site. She said that parking would be adequate to meet the requirements of an office building. Knoblauch said that she was unclear from the preliminary plans where the dumpster would be placed and added that the dumpster would need to be placed within the building or properly located on the site. She said staff believes the dumpster should be placed within the building. • Internal/External Compatibility. Knoblauch said the PUD would need to insure that if new ownership of one of the lots occurs; the lots will maintain the appearance of a single campus. She told the commission that the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area was created in order to eliminate blighted influences in the area, and the commission should one Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998. Page 5 be careful in allowing which uses should be allowed in the Golden Hills area in order to maintain the elimination of blighted areas. Knoblauch told the commission that this building would be used as office. Staff has recommended that no medical use be allowed because additional parking is required for this type of use. Also, staff believes the services allowed in the building would be used by those in the building and surrounding area. (Knoblauch referenced the Area A-1 services which would serve the three buildings on the site and surrounding area.) She also said that advertisement for these services could not be for the general public but flyers to the surrounding area is appropriate. Knoblauch recommended no outdoor storage or temporary retail sales be permitted and such be specified in the permit. She said staff is unaware of any noise problems with the CyberOptics building. She noted the residential area to the north, but stated that there is a 75-foot setback and berms to help if this problem should arise. She said if there were truck noise, i.e. refrigerator trucks, the permit could limit the time they could be on the property overnight. Knoblauch commented that the city could limit, through the permit, what types of manufacturing uses could be operated on the site. Knoblauch noted that the overall site function is unified or complimentary to the design plans for the outdoor features and building facades so they are similar in nature and type of lighting. She noted there would need to be a cross agreement with the owners regarding landscaping, the shared driveway and walkways. She said that the signage is not controlled through the zoning, but should meet standards of city code. • Engineering/Construction Issues. Knoblauch said the engineering memo attached does not note any serious concerns. She said the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission would need to address drainage issues before the City Council gives General Plan approval. Knoblauch noted the Inspections memo saying that landscaping will need to meet city standards and that the commission could recommend this plan be reviewed by the City Forester. Knoblauch reviewed the staff recommendations. She asked if the commission would like her to review the manufacturing uses outlined in the memo and the commission said that she did not need to. Vice-Chair Shaffer said the CyberOptics building has its dumpsters outside on the loading dock and is this where they should be placed. Knoblauch said because this is a PUD, it would be appropriate for the commission to address this item. She said that at an absolute minimum the dumpsters should be screened. Martens noted the proposed vacant site shows berming at 4 feet whereas the CyberOptics site's berming is 7 or 8 feet. He questioned why the berming could not be higher on the proposed site. He also said the trash containers on the CyberOptics site needs to be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 6 addressed. Knoblauch commented that the CyberOptics site did not go through any zoning process, therefore staff would only know of problems if complaints were issued regarding the trash containers being left on the docking area. Grimes commented the containers may just not being put back where they belong. Kapsner said the commission may need to make a recommendation that the trash be placed inside the building, and the CyberOptics site may need screening for its trash containers, if it has the ability. Kapsner suggested eliminating from the conditions anything on food preparation and if something comes up in the future then it would need to come back through the process. Groger asked if the conditions. included unified amenities, such as sharing the lawn maintenance and parking lot. Knoblauch said that the conditions could spell out more clearly concerns of the commission regarding shared maintenance and the parking lot. Groger noted that there are already three driveways out onto Laurel Avenue and the plans call for a fourth from the proposed site and two driveways from Golden Hills. He believes the City is encouraging traffic onto Laurel Avenue by adding another driveway. Knoblauch said the existing driveways are intended for freight vehicles. Groger again commented that there seems to be one too many driveways which will discourage people from taking Golden Hills Drive. Martens noted that the plan shows parking to the rear. of the existing site, along Laurel Avenue, which would generate more car traffic onto Laurel Avenue. Groger said he would request the elimination of the one driveway from the proposed lot onto Laurel Avenue. Grimes told the commission that there has been no complaints regarding the entrances onto Laurel Avenue from the CyberOptics site in respect to truck traffic. Kapsner said the orientation of the roadway system is that people will be coming off of I-394 and entering these sites from Golden Hills Drive. Knoblauch agreed. She asked if the commission is suggesting the middle driveway entrance from Laurel Avenue be eliminated. Shaffer said the advantage to this would be eliminating one more railroad crossing of vehicles. Kapsner said that he doesn't believe all three driveways are needed. Johnson suggested doing signage at the entrances of the driveways to alert them what is there. .Grimes told the commission that the easterly driveway, on Golden Hills Drive, would be mostly vehicle traffic entering the site. He said he doesn't believe that Laurel Avenue has been overburdened by vehicles using the entrances on this side of the CyberOptics site. Martens said that he concurs with the recommendation of restriction of truck traffic to certain hours, but would lengthen. the permitted times from 11 pm to Gam and agrees with limiting outdoor storage and trash. The applicant was not present for comment or questions. Vice-Chair Shaffer opened the informal public hearing. 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 7 Erwin Lichten, 365 Brunswick South, commented that he is the closest resident to Laurel Avenue to the north and has consistently seen more and more traffic on Laurel Avenue. He agreed by closing one of the driveways on Laurel Avenue from the CyberOptics site would help put more traffic onto Golden Hills Drive. Vice-Chair Shaffer closed the informal public hearing. Groger said the general conditions listed were very good, but may be difficult to limit manufacturing uses and asked if there was anything in the existing code that could be used as a guideline. Knoblauch suggested the light industrial list and reviewed those uses. Groger said that he was okay with this approach. He said he would also like to see across- parking agreement between the two parking lots and the elimination of the driveway onto Laurel Avenue, specifically the one that aligns with the entrance from Golden Hills Drive. Martens said that he was bothered by what kind of manufacturing use is or is not acceptable, such as sheet metal. He said there could be other uses that cause noise and create smells which are not mentioned in the report and believes it would be better to define uses in a looser fashion. Knoblauch said the concern is that staff may not have the expertise to determine whether a particular use may or may not cause noise or smell that is bothersome to the neighborhood. Grimes said that this will be an air-conditioned building and the doors probably would be closed which will help eliminate noise in the area. Kapsner said that he believes a general statement may raise a flag to prospective tenants of the building that if there were some kind of noise or smell related to their use that the building could not be rented to them. Groger said he is suggesting three more recommendations: 1) berming on the proposed site be the same height as that found on the CyberOptics site; 2) trash containers be enclosed or properly screened on the CyberOptics site; and 3) the entrances into the CyberOptics site be noted as trucking entrances. Shaffer asked staff about tam snow removal and noise. Knoblauch commented that that is one of the most difficult things to control because there are only so many companies that remove snow and tenants want their driveways cleaned-out before employees arrive. McAleese said that increasing the size of the berm, along with landscaping of the area, would help eliminate some of the noise problems and flashing lights. He agreed there should be some limitation on the manufacturing uses on the site. He said a general statement would be useful, in that proposed tenants in 15 years may not be looking at this building for an office use, and it should be in the record what the commission would and would not like to see on the site. McAleese said he also favors removing one driveway off of Laurel Avenue. Shaffer suggested adding site sign language that it meet City standards and be uniform in nature. Grimes said that the applicant plans on doing that. McAleese said the application deems to be complete and qualifies as a PUD. ~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 8 Knoblauch asked if she should review the recommendations; Shaffer said that he did not believe that would be necessary. Knoblauch asked if her comments concerning retail sales should remain. Shaffer thought they should be included. Johnson said that if temporary retail sales have caused the city some problems, this should be looked at separately. McAleese recommended that the cross-easement agreement between the two lots, be included so the owners of the lots can determine how to handle parking lot issues and landscaping. Martens asked how day cares were limited in this area. Knoblauch said that if a day care were to occupy space in either building would be limited to employee's children and used as an on-site day care; it would not be opened to the public. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Golden Hills Business Park, P.U.D. No. 78 subject to the following conditions: • all plans submitted for the General Plan stage, or required as attachments to the permit itself, are to show full details of the entire site; • landscaping plans are to be given final approval by the Building Board of Review, but should at minimum include north side berm plantings of a variety, and maturity to match the already-established greenery on the berm across the Gast (CyberOptics) lot -- an increase in the density of berm plantings is also recommended for both lots; • grading and landscape plans should be revised to reflect a berm of approximately 7 or 8 feet on the proposed west lot to match the existing berm on the east lot occupied by CyberOptics; • the applicant is to prepare an access and maintenance agreement for the joint driveway, and including provisions for joint maintenance/repair of the parking areas on both lots, • rubbish disposal facilities are to be located entirely within the main buildings if possible, though a properly enclosed outside dumpster area would be acceptable for the existing building if there is no reasonable interior location, and there is to be no rubbish pick-up between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM; • activities to be permitted in both buildings and on the site in general as follows: general offices but no medical offices, with the easterly (CyberOptics) building additionally limited to no more than 57,000 gross square feet of office space; • e office support services like cafeterias or snack bars, copying and collating centers, mail centers, or day care - no outside advertising allowed, in order to maintain classification as limited accessory uses; warehouse uses; 1 <} ,- ~ ~~ ,~ a a. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 9 • temporary retail sales as regulated by City code, except that the owner of the other lot must provide written consent for any such proposed sale before the City will approve a temporary retail sale application on either lot; • manufacturing uses regularly permitted under City zoning provisions are allowed without specific restriction, but the leasing agent(s) should take care to select tenants that do not employ processes or machinery likely to cause a nuisance for other tenants or for adjacent residential and office uses; • no freight truck maneuvering or freight loading or unloading between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM; • no freight trucks containing refrigerated or other materials that require constant generator power allowed on site between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM; • no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment; • unified or complementary design plans for all outdoor facilities and amenities on both lots, with an agreement providing for shared decisions on long-term maintenance and on any future changes to such facilities and amenities; • an agreement providing for joint contracting of all outdoor seasonal maintenance; and • business signage to meet the standards established in City code, and overall campus identification and directional signage to be covered under unified design and joint maintenance agreement recommended above for outdoor facilities; • all proposed legal agreements are subject to review by the City Attorney at the applicant's expense; • the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the Engineering Department memo dated July 21, 1998; and • the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the Inspections Department memo dated July 22, 1998. IV. Informal Public Hearing -Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Border Foods, Inc. Address: 6620 Wayzata Boulevard and 950 Florida Avenue South Request: To consolidate the lots at 6620 Wayzata Blvd. and 950 Florida Avenue South T" t"? G ~`rl Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 10 V. Informal Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Border Foods, Inc. Address: 6620 Wayzata Boulevard and 950 Florida Avenue South Request: To allow, by Conditional Use Permit, a Class II restaurant (Taco Bell) in the Industrial Zoning District Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes summarized the requests for the lot consolidation and conditional use permit. He said Border Foods is making these requests in order to construct a new, larger Taco Bell which would occupy the existing Taco Bell site and the 394 Car Wash site. He noted that both lots are platted and would come to 1.5 acres in size after the consolidation. Grimes noted that the consolidation is a simple matter with the exception of the issue of the required 70-foot street in an Industrial district. He said that Florida, at this time, is only 60 feet wide. Grimes said that staff had originally missed this issue when the staff report was written and since that time had talked with the applicant on how to address this situation. He said there are two issues to look at. First, Border Foods would have to request a variance from the subdivision section of code to allow for an easement for the street. (The city is requiring a 6-foot utility easement that can be made in the future.) Grimes said that if the Commission agreed with the easement procedure, there would be a 30-foot setback on the Florida side of the property instead of the required 35 feet. He said that all other code requirements are being met. Grimes next reviewed the conditional use permit request. He said that the existing Taco Bell would be raised in order to construct a larger restaurant. He reviewed the site plan pointing out the entrances/exits and stating all setbacks and greenspace would be met and there also would be adequate parking available. He pointed out that the dumpster would be in an enclosed area that would be accessible to garage trucks. Martens. asked about whether landscaping came under the commission jurisdiction. Grimes said the plan would be reviewed by the Board of Building Review who comments on landscaping plans. Martens said he believes the landscaping is very weak along Wayzata Blvd. and especially the southeast corner. Grimes said the applicant has to meet minimum landscape standards. Martens suggested that landscaping around the southeast corner would provide a focal point to the site. Shaffer asked staff the second way to gain the needed footage for the street. Grimes stated that the applicant could go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a variance for 5 feet along Florida Avenue, but Border Foods would give an easement so this could be convertgd as dedication to widen Florida Avenue. Grimes also said that he has talked with Acting City Engineer, Jeff Oliver who said that Florida Avenue was just widened so there are no immediate plans for updating it again. McAleese said there is a third option, which is for the City to require the additional right-of- way. 7 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 11 Grimes said that timing is an issue to Taco Bell and that the first suggestion of a variance to the subdivision code would probably be the better way to go. McAleese asked if the Commission needed to make a recommendation to the City Council on what approach to go with. Grimes said the Commission should make a recommendation and that Taco Bell would like to proceed with the subdivision variance. Martens commented that there is a reasonable chance that there would be no further improvement to Florida Avenue, so it would be agreeable to him to let Taco Bell take the fastest route available. Maleah Acosta, representative for the applicant, told the commission that Border Foods is presenting an excellent plan and encouraged the commission to allow the them to proceed with the variance from the subdivision section of code. Kapsner asked if Border Foods was required to make due without the five feet could it be done by altering the parking lot or repositioning the building. Acosta said the drive aisles would probably be narrowed which would be creating a less desirable site plan. Grimes noted that when there is a lot of traffic going through the site, as Taco Bell, it is desirable to have wider drive aisles for maneuverability. McAleese said that generally he is bothered with new construction needing variances, but land along I-394 usually requires some type of variance. He said it's the mechanics of how to get there as far as making a recommendation to the City Council. He said that he did not have that section of code that outlines the variance being requested. McAleese noted that Border Foods is requesting the subdivision variance only because of a timing issue. Acosta said that she believes people like the site plan as laid out and the best way to solve the five- foot issue would be with a variance from the subdivision code. McAleese said it seems pretty reasonable to him but it seems more like policy than a land use decision so uncomfortable with making a recommendation for a subdivision variance to the City Council. McAleese said he likes the proposal and believes if the buildable lot size were to be made smaller, problems would arise on the site. He said he would rather have the City Council decide on how the applicant should proceed with the required 5 feet needed on Florida. Grimes said the Council could decide that Taco Bell dedicate the 5 feet and then rework there site plan or proceed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance. Martens talked about the fact that the site would be made smaller and especially the drive aisles if the 5 feet were required and suggested that by giving the variance the City would get a more efficient site. Kapsner said the council would probably appreciate a recommendation from the commission. Grimes agreed. McAleese asked staff if there should be two .votes. He said that even though the lot was bit small for the use, that was not a reason to grant the variance, and that when it comes to ~! Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 12 variances, requirements are to be strictly followed. He said he was not sure he could tell the Council what approach should be taken and would be willing to let the Council make this decision. He would pass along that the proposal is acceptable. Martens asked if comments about landscaping should be included. Acosta said landscaping could be included, especially around the southeast corner. Shaffer asked about signage for the site. Acosta said the existing signs would be refinished. Shaffer asked about the north side of property and suggested screening along that area because of the car repair business on this side of the site. Acosta said that the entire site had been reviewed and that the new building would not make any drainage situation worse on the site. She said the entire site would be curb and gutter and would drain into the City's sewer system. McAleese asked about hours of operation for the restaurant and its drive-through. Barb Schneider, Director for Border Foods, commented that they would like the restaurant to remain open until tam because there are a number of people who are out at that hour, but they would adhere to market conditions. Kapsner asked how late Taco Bell is now open; Schneider thought 1 am. McAleese said that he doesn't see a problem with hours of operation in this area. He asked if there is a mechanism in place in case problems arise. McAleese also said he does not believe there would anything that would eclipse the noise presently coming off of I-394. Knoblauch said the City could give out provisional hours for one year. Schneider said that she would hope that complaints would come directly to the restaurant. Grimes said that believes this is a logical location fora 24-hour operation and there would always be the code that would force them to comply with regulations. Vice-Chair Shaffer opened the informal public hearing, seeing and hearing no one, Vice- Chair Shaffer closed the informal public hearing. McAleese said that he was uncomfortable with recommending to the City Council that a variance be granted from the subdivision section of city code. He would be more comfortable saying that the Commission likes the proposal and have the BZA grant the variances. He said on the issue of the proposal itself, the consolidation of the lots make sense as does granting the Conditional Use Permit. McAleese said he favors the proposal and recommends the Council approve the proposal but is uncomfortable with the mechanics of how the Commission should deal with the issue of the right-of-way.. Johnson said she favors the proposal and is uncomfortable with shifting a decision onto the BZA, and would like to see the Commission recommend the subdivision variance. She said it is a good use for the site and Border Foods has met all other requirements. FF k. d L,l Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 27, 1998 Page 13 Groger said he was comfortable with the variance from the subdivision section of code and that it is the Council who makes the ultimate decision. Martens also agreed with comments of Johnson and Groger. Shaffer doesn't see any reason to have the BZA look at this if there is a method in place, and is in favor of the lot consolidation MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot consolidation and for a variance from Section 11.54, Subd. 1(A)(1) of City Code. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Restaurant in the Industrial Zoning District subject to the standard conditions and additional landscaping. VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals McAleese reported on the City Council meeting of July 21. VII. Other Business No other business was presented. VIII. Adjournment Vice-Chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 9:45pm. 1