Loading...
08-10-98 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 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, August 10, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer; absent was Johnson. Also present were Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes --July 27, 1998 MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 27, 1998 minutes as submitted with three minor changes. 11. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision Applicant: .Gopher News Address 9000 10th Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: To allow for the subdivision of the existing lot in order to create a second lot of 4.26 acres in size. City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave a summary of Director Mark Grimes' report. She outlined, using the location map, where the subject property was located and major roads in the area. Knoblauch said the existing lot is approximately 12.51 acres in size and the lot split would make the existing lot 8.25 acres and the proposed lot 4.26 acres in size. Knoblauch said the applicant was to show existing parking and proof of parking. This was demonstrated on the site plan. She said at this time, the subject property is used for manufacturing, and that 85 percent (approximately 85,000 sq.ft.) is used for manufacturing or warehousing. She said it should be in the record that if the property were sold, it could not be used for office unless they demonstrated that all parking requirements could be met on the site due to the lot split. Knoblauch reviewed the ten conditions of consideration. Knoblauch said staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision for a lot split with the recommendation that the final plat show all easements. She said that Director Grimes said in his staff memo that a dedication fee should be paid, but she believes Grimes meant to say that the new site would need to be reviewed for ponding. Knoblauch told the Commission that she would address this issue with the Director when he returned from vacation. 1 1 1 ~il Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 2 Chair Pentel asked about the ponding issue and would the applicant need to provide on-site ponding. Knoblauch said the new smaller site would be reviewed to determine if on-site ponding was required. Martens commented on the propane tank on the west side of the property and is it permitted in the setback area. Pentel asked staff to review this setback issue further. Martens asked about the restriction of uses on the site based on parking, and asked if additional parking would be allowed north of the existing parking lot. Knoblauch said staff would like it in the minutes concerning future uses and required parking. She said this way the file can be reviewed for future discussions of proposed uses and parking requirements. Roseanne Hope, Dorsey & Whitney, 220 South Sixth Street, represented the applicant. She told the Commission that the new lot would not be developed at this time, that the purpose for the subdivision was for tax purposes only. She also noted that Gopher News, the owner and occupant of the existing site, has no intention of moving or changing its use at this time. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel noted that this was a very straight forward request with the only issue of potential development and the requirement of ponding on the site. She recommended staff to review the matter of park dedication vs. ponding. MOVED by Martens, seconded by McAleese and the motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Gopher News for a minor subdivision to split the existing lot located at 9000 10th Avenue North. III. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Golden Valley VFW Address: 7775 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Consolidate three lots into one in order to allow for the construction of a 22' x 28' addition onto the rear of the existing building. City Planner Knoblauch review the location map pointing out where the subject property was located, other properties and major roads. Knoblauch told the Commission that this request is for a lot consolidation of three lots and that an existing building expands two of the lots. Knoblauch told the Commission that there are existing variances on the property and that the applicant would be going before the Board of Zoning Appeals in August requesting several other variances. She then reviewed the ten conditions for consideration commenting on easements and other public agencies having jurisdiction over the property. Knoblauch pointed out that the applicant must grant the city any required easements. She d Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 3 noted the easements that must be vacated or given: two easements going through the property which would need to be vacated if this had not been done, a 10 foot utility easement and three foot bike easement along Medicine Lake Road, and six foot easement along any side or rear property lines. Knoblauch told the Commission that staff had not yet received comments from Hennepin County, but based on similar applications and comments received from the County, staff expects the county will require an easement of seven feet for right-of--way for future widening of Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch commented that staff would ask the City Attorney if a title opinion were necessary for the granting of utility easements along property lines. Knoblauch said staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to county comments regarding dedication of additional right-of-way for the future widening of Medicine Lake Road, and the dirt pile next to the garage be removed along with the two street sweeping machines. She said the removal of these items must take place prior to a permit being pulled for the new construction. Martens questioned whether the existing sidewalk, next to the curb and not in the sidewalk easement, need to be moved if additional right-of-way is required. Knoblauch said the standard 80-foot road usually includes a basic sidewalk, but the additional three feet the county may ask for would be for the bike trail. McAleese asked about the variances required for the site. Administrative Secretary Mary Dold responded that variances are required for parking and the existing garage. McAleese noted that with the consolidation of lots the variances would not exist anymore and believed it would be appropriate to list all variances required for the site when it goes before the Board of Zoning Appeals in August. Shaffer asked if the dumpster location would be addressed at the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Secretary Dold said that this item would be included on the agenda for BZA review. McAleese asked if the easement running under the existing building should be addressed. Knoblauch said it should be incorporated into the recommendation. The applicant was not present to answer questions. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and. hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner commented that the approval should list the easements as per staff's recommendations. McAleese said some of the concerns for this property would be worked out at the BZA meeting and found the request to be straightforward. 1 `~ _> Q^2 .. ~ _ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 4 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for a lot consolidation by the Golden Valley VFW with the conditions that all required easements be given, and the easements going through the property be vacated, the dirt pile be removed from the site and the two sweeping machines either be placed in the garage or removed from the site before a building permit is granted for the construction of the addition. IV. Informal Public Hearing -Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 55 Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Address: 8909 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Amend the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 55 by allowing the construction of a cellular telephone & radio tower on the site which changes the site plan attached to the existing CUP City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission that the applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing CUP on the Wilkins Pontiac site in order to construct a telephone and radio tower. She reviewed the location map noting the subject property, the frontage road and other major roads in the area. Knoblauch reviewed the site plan pointing out where the monopole would be located and told the Commission that the applicant would like to add a second story to the existing trash enclosure; this second story would house the telecommunications equipment. She told the Commission that there was concern when the dealership went in that there would be intermittent problems when car shipments arrived, but staff has not heard of any problems recently. Knoblauch said that the property is zoned Industrial which allows for minor cell towers, such as this one, that are not directly related to the monopole business. She said that the second story enclosure would take out two parking spaces due to the stairs required to enter the second level. Knoblauch said another issue is that the existing trash enclosure is located in the side setback and staff is not sure how this happened because the original plans did not include the trash enclosure. She said the Commission could comment on the trash enclosure, but it would be the BZA that addresses it through a variance and if the BZA denied the request the applicant could then appeal to the City Council. Knoblauch then reviewed the ten factors of consideration for a CUP. Knoblauch said staff recommends approval for AT&T's request with the following conditions: 1. The BZA approve all necessary variances. (Several variances cover existing conditions.) 2. The proposed site plan must be revised to reflect all on-site parking and must be accompanied by an analysis of how well the parking meets the current code requirements. it ~! ~~./ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 5 3. The site plan and elevation detail be made a part of the amended CUP. 4. The floor plans dated 12/18/92 remain attached to the CUP. 5. The ground floor and upper floor of the original building be used as originally intended as noted in the permit. The lower level of the trash enclosure be used only as a trash enclosure and the second level of the addition be used only for such equipment as necessary to maintain the proper function of the cellular monopole. 6. Additional construction shall match the general appearance represented in the elevation detail 7. The monopole shall not exceed a height of 80 150 feet as measured from ground level. 8. There shall be a maximum of fifty employees allowed on the site. 9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit Pentel asked about condition No. 7 and whether the height should be changed to reflect the proposed height of the monopole on the plan, that 80 feet should cover the height. Pentel asked about the height of the signage on the site. Knoblauch commented that the height was probably dictated by the I-394 construction. Pentel asked if staff could find out the height of the sign. Knoblauch said that could be found in the Inspection's file on the property. Pentel said she would like this information passed along to the City Council and BZA so it is on record. Martens asked if there were restrictions on what the monopole could be used for, such as signs. Knoblauch said there is nothing specific in code about signage on monopoles. Pentel asked whether the Commission could place restrictions on what is tied to the monopole. Knoblauch said the code states these are strictly monopoles, but being able to place signs on the tower is not in code. Groger asked if staff had reviewed the files for this property to determine how the trash enclosure was placed where it is now located on the site. Knoblauch said the files have been reviewed and found no information, when key personnel left, who reviewed most of the construction permits, so did the knowledge of how the enclosure was placed where it is. Groger asked if it was implicit that it would be inside storage or was it stated so. Knoblauch said it was not stated that it would be inside storage, but because it was not presented it should have been inside. Groger asked if the original plan showed a contemplated trash enclosure. Knoblauch said it did not. Groger asked if the trash enclosure is in violation of city code, by being in the side setback, why would the Planning Commission consider an expansion of this nonconformity. Knoblauch said the issue of the trash enclosure being in the side setback would need to go to the BZA for review. She said staff is unsure how the trash enclosure was constructed where it is now located. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1.998 Page 6 Pentel said what we are doing here is enlarging upon and making permanent a use that is violating our current code. McAleese agreed, and the argument could be made that if the city allowed the enclosure to go there, the commission would be estopped from making them move the enclosure, but to expand the use at this time is an entirely different process. Knoblauch commented that the applicant has been told this is not a-slam-dunk approval, especially by putting a second story onto something already located in the setback. Shaffer asked if the trash enclosure lined up with the building and out of the side yard would there need to be a variance granted for the monopole. Knoblauch said the monopole would need a variance because it would be in the setback. Kapsner commented that he suspects that the construction of this trash enclosure just happened. He asked if by moving the trash enclosure out of the setback would parking spaces be taken. Knoblauch said either parking or circulation would be taken that is a functioning part of the site. Kapsner believed this was a good idea of placing the equipment room on top of the existing trash enclosure, but could it be placed on top of an existing building or used as a small part of the building. Knoblauch commented that the applicant probably needs personnel to be able to get access to the equipment when the business is not open. McAleese commented that this is an issue of a two-story accessory use in a setback that will be decided by the BZA. He believes this is a policy issue and is reluctant about the procedure of addressing this. Knoblauch commented that city code says that a function of the BZA is not only to grant variances but also to reconsider administrative determinations and staff at this point have administratively said a) this cannot be called part of the main building because it has no access inside and b) you cannot have a two story accessory building because there is nothing in code and we have not allowed it in the past. The BZA will look at these two decisions. McAleese has concerns on standards that the BZA has set in the past. Peter Beck, representative for AT&T, theorized how the trash enclosure was placed in the side yard. Beck commented on the proposal noting that the footprint of the trash enclosure would not be enlarged, that the proposal into only go upward. He said the base of the monopole would be screened by existing vegetation and the trash enclosure. Beck believes that from the perspective that the base of the pole would be hidden by the enclosure and vegetation this proposal is good for the existing facility. Beck next explained what vicinity would be covered by the monopole and its capacity. He noted that in this part of the Metro area, more sites are needed. Beck agreed with the recommendations by staff and would agree to a parking evaluation. Pentel asked if AT&T would lease the property from Wilkins. Beck said a small piece of land would be leased. Pentel asked what would happen if the pole fell onto the neighbor's property. Beck said AT&T is liable, but these poles are very safe. Pentel asked if AT&T owned a majority of monopoles or are there a variety of companies. Beck explained what kinds of organizations were licensed and what type of poles are needed. He said as the AT&T clientele grows, more poles would need to be added. ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 7 Martens asked if there was any trend to use the poles for advertisement. Beck said AT&T has declined this type of use and_only small safety type notices are placed on the poles. McAleese asked about Condition No. 7 and would they object to a limit of 80 feet. Beck said at this time they had no objection. He said the only advantage would be to the City in that a taller pole could accommodate another use instead of constructing another tower. Knoblauch asked the applicant to comment on how many other companies could use AT&T's pole. Beck said only one more could be added on. Knoblauch asked if AT&T needed to add additional footage, could it be done by going up instead of replacing the entire pole. Beck said poles are attached by bolts so adding another pole would be no big deal because most poles are sleeve-type joints. He said the commission may want to leave the higher height to offer another user the use of the existing pole. Groger asked how often parking spaces would be lost due to maintenance. Beck said maintenance is performed once a month and at off-hours. He believes there would be two parking spaces lost due to the location of the stairs to the second story equipment room. He questioned the flexibility of locating the stairs to the east side noting that there would be no impact on parking, but the stairs would be placed in the side yard setback. He said he does not believe the stairs would impact the adjoining neighbor. Knoblauch commented that the BZA may want to know if this is an option. Shaffer asked about the existing structure and what would need to be done in order to add a second story. Beck said that the trash enclosure would need to be rebuilt. Shaffer asked what the chances were of moving it to the west so the enclosure was rtiot in the side yard setback. Beck commented that it is in a parking area now. Shaffer suggested moving the enclosure to the west and making a cut into the existing facility, and then it would not be deemed an accessory structure. Shaffer highly suggested that this be looked at. Beck commented that by moving the enclosure over the monopole would no longer be screened. Pentel commented that the monopole would be seen by anyone who uses I-394. Shaffer said that he doesn't see the pole being shielded as a real issue. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner commented that he would prefer to use one or two more parking spaces than permit encroachment into the setback area. He believes the parking problem occurs when shipments come in, otherwise parking is not an issue. He likes the idea that the tower be a bit higher so another user could use it. Kapsner said he's becoming concerned with the placement of these monopoles because he was led to believe that they would not be placed so close together and that other users would have access to them, and now it appears that they may be in every block. -~ „ ~~ s' F - Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 8 Pentel said she was not concerned about losing the two parking spaces because it is only at certain times that the site is tight. She said she does not want to see the stairway in the side setback and questioned the safety of the open stairway considering this is a lot that is not totally fenced in. Shaffer commented that being the representative to the BZA, he would be carrying all these thoughts to the BZA meeting. He said his main concern is the structure in the side yard setback. He said logically, the building is there now so leave it, but because they are tearing it down he would prefer that they look at moving it to the west. He said he has no concern with the monopole being in the setback. Groger said he would be voting against the request because he sees no overriding need for the proposal as it is before the commission tonight. He said when the CUP was initially approved, the staff report said there were setback issues on all four sides and there have been parking issues in the past; this is a very tightly developed site. He commented that by denying the request the city is not denying Wilkins a legitimate use of the property -this is an accessory use. He believes that it fits in the general neighborhood, but is not convinced there might not be other sites in this area. Groger said to take a situation that is nonconforming and to legitimize and expand upon it is not appropriate situation. He said he could not support the expansion of a nonconforming use, but would be willing to look at the trash enclosure being moved. McAleese said that he would be voting against the request even though this is the type of neighborhood he would like to see a monopole be placed in. He concurred with Groger's comments and agreed with Shaffer's comment to move the enclosure to the west, out of the setback. He believes the Commission is making things worse by passing the request. Pentel asked staff if there were a motion made to deny should there be a second motion with conditions in case the City Council approves the request. Knoblauch said yes. Kapsner asked Beck if AT&T needed the equipment building. Beck said yes that AT&T's buildings are somewhat larger than other users. Shaffer asked if there is the potential that another user could be added to the pole. Beck said this pole could be made strong enough to accommodate another user. He added that if there were another building or structure in the area that AT&T could use, he would not be before the Planning Commission tonight. Kapsner commented that there is a problem with the site but believes that there will be a greater need for more poles, and if it is not approved on this site, there will be another one close by. Pentel said finding a location is the user's problem that the Commission's problem is dealing with an accessory structure that is nonconforming and then added on to it. Martens said that the monopole does not bother him but the nonconformity issue does. Beck commented that he knows it is the users problem, but AT&T is willing to work with the community. He said that the Wilkins site is a good location and if Wilkins does not want to move the structure, AT&T may not use the site. ~_. Vii, a' ~ ~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 9 Shaffer said that he has a problem with the existing structure located in the setback. Beck said that it would be Wilkins call to move the trash enclosure. McAleese commented the commission would be setting a precedent by allowing the construction of the second level and thus expanding a nonconforming use. He believes that this is a terrific site for a monopole. Beck said that this is an industrially zoned district and should be able to put on a second story onto the trash enclosure. Kapsner asked if the proposal is to use two parking spaces for the stairway, why not use the spaces to locate the equipment room next to the trash enclosure. Beck said Wilkins would have to address this issue. Pentel commented there would still be a nonconforming structure in the setback. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to recommend to the City Council to deny the request to allow the construction of a monopole and second story telecommunications equipment room above the existing trash enclosure for the following reasons: 1. The property is already densely developed, with significant landscaping setback variances granted on all four sides at the time of construction in 1992; the added structure setback variances required for the current proposal indicate that there is simply not enough room for additional construction. 2. Though small in terms of its footprint, the proposed trash enclosure/equipment building is considerably taller than most accessory buildings; this higher profile is of particular concern because of the required setback variance, which could establish an undesirable precedent. 3. The fact that the existing trash enclosure was somehow built in a setback area can be overlooked as an accident, but purposely allowing it to be rebuilt in the same location and at a greater height may give the impression that the City somehow endorses such accidents. McAleese said in the event that the City Council approves the amended CUP, it should include the ten conditions as noted in staff's memo dated August 4, 1998. Shaffer suggested one additional item would be for the applicant to consider moving the trash enclosure out of the side yard setback. Groger commented that condition No. 7 should be amended to 80 feet. Shaffer commented that he sees little difference between 80 and 100 feet. Pentel disagreed not knowing what the height of the sign was and it would be better able to determine the height of the monopole. If it were as high as the sign it would be too tall. McAleese commented that by limiting the height, we are forcing someone to come back to the City if they wanted to go higher than that, so would favor setting a cap of 80 or 100 feet. 1 ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 10 Kapsner questioned whether the primary reason for denial should be made clearer. Martens commented that if the building were moved to the west, it would eliminate the setback issue, but parking would still be an issue. Shaffer and Pentel concurred with Martens that the main issue is the structure in the setback and the reduction of parking spaces due to the stairway for the addition. McAleese said his motion includes staff's 10 conditions including language that the applicant look at moving the enclosure out of the setback. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously that should the council set aside the preceding recommendation and vote instead to approve the proposal then the following conditions should be attached. 1. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve any necessary variances before final approval is granted by the City Council 2. Before going to the BZA, the proposed site plan must be revised to reflect all on-site parking and must be accompanied by an analysis of how well the parking meets current code requirements, so that the need for a parking variance can be properly determined. The applicant should also make every effort to provide the BZA with options for getting the proposed trash enclosure/equipment building out of the required- setback area, even if it means removing additional parking. 3. The revised site plan and the elevation detail shall be made part of the amended CUP as approved; any additional changes that may be required beyond those noted in #2 above, shall be incorporated into final plans submitted by the applicant for permit attachment. 4. The floor plans dated 2/18/92 and approved as part of the original CUP shall remain attached to the amended CUP. Floor plans shall not be required for the additional construction. 5. The ground floor of the original building may be used for automobile sales, servicing, leasing, additional parts storage, and miscellaneous employee areas not identified on the approved floor plan. The upper floor of the original building may be used for parts storage and for such offices or other employee areas as are incidental to the automobile sales and service business, which may include leasing. The ground floor of the addition shall be used only as a trash enclosure, and the upper floor shall be used only for such equipment as necessary to maintain the proper function of the cellular monopole. 6. Additional construction, including the monopole, shall match the general appearance represented in the elevation detail 7. The monopole shall not exceed a height of 80 feet as measured from ground level. 8. There shall be a maximum of fifty employees allowed on the site. ~~_ ~. ~~ ~_~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 10, 1998 Page 11 9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. V. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given. VI. Other Business A. Attendance of Planning Commissioner(s) to the MnAPA conference At the time of the meeting, no commissioners had decided to attend the meeting. B. Other Discussions Pentel briefly talked about the construction going on at the Minneapolis Crisis Nursery site, specifically noting the height of the trash enclosure to the rear of the building and asked if this was suppose to go elsewhere on the site. Shaffer agreed that the trash enclosure sits very high. After some discussion it was believed that the enclosure is placed where it should be. Shaffer commented that trash enclosures should be included inside buildings. Knoblauch told the commission that Mark Grimes was following up on the concern about the height of the berms on the Valley Creek site. She said Grimes recalls that Valley Creek said they would work the details out Mallard Creek. Pentel said she recalls that there would be a berm high enough to block out the car lights glaring into the apartments. VII. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 9pm. ilie Johnson, Secretary 1