Loading...
10-23-00 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23,2000 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, October 23,2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson. I. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 2000 - Commission Shaffer stated that he did not second the motion recorded at the bottom of page six of the minutes. The minutes should be amended to read: Hoffman then re-stated his motion as a positive motion to accept the staff recommendation for this subdivision with the five conditions stated in the memo. Seconded by Eck. Commissioner Groger indicated that the second paragraph on page three of the minutes attributed a question to him, which was asked by Commissioner McAleese. The minutes should be amended to read: McAleese asked if the existing plat, Honeywell Golden Valley Addition, was platted and registered with Hennepin County. - Chair Pentel referred to the sixth paragraph on page two of the minutes. Her question should be stated as follows: Pentel asked if it was appropriate to have the entire site meet water quality standards at this time. Chair Pentel indicated that the word infill should not be in italics in the minutes. Chair Pentel also referred to the second sentence in the fifth paragraph on page five. She stated that the phrase at the end of the sentence, "there back door" should be corrected to "their back door". Moved by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously, to approve the September 25, 2000 minutes as amended. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 2 II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan -- Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89 Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2125 Winnetka Avenue and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is part of Outlot 1 of the Marimac Addition Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of seven single-family homes on the subject vacant land and include the existing single- family home, situated on its own lot along Winnetka Avenue, and a proposed triplex where the existing duplex is now located. The duplex would be converted into a triplex and be situated on its own lot. McAleese stated that a motion should be made to bring this item off the table since it was tabled at the previous meeting. He asked that staff address the following questions before proceeding with the motion: ~ McAleese stated that, according to the P.U.D. ordinance, certain data must be included in the preliminary plat or the Planning Commission cannot consider the item. He indicated that he was unable to find the following items in the preliminary plat: 1) Existing zoning classification (requirement of Section 12.11, Item 2B) 2) Total approximate acreage (Item 2C) City Planner Dan Olson responded that the zoning classification and the total acreage are not on the plat but that this information is included in the application. 3) Minimum front and side street setback lines (Item 3G) - 4) Location of existing streets and structures Grimes responded that there is not currently a street platted through the property. 5) Boundary lines of adjoining property identified by name and ownership. McAleese stated that he would be in favor of revising the existing code if all of the information it requires on the preliminary plat is not necessary. However, he stated that the Commission is required to follow the current code, which clearly states that if all of these items are not included in the preliminary plat it cannot be considered by the Planning Commission. City Planner Olson stated that he would take steps to ensure that all of the required information was included in the future. - e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 3 Pentel stated that it should be clarified that the Planning Commission has already recommended denial of the request to rezone the existing duplex to a triplex. Rasmussen asked whose responsibility it is to make certain that the required items are included on the preliminary plat. Grimes responded that it is the responsibility of staff. He stated that all of the required information is included in the application but some of it may not appear on the plat document itself. He suggested that the code could be revised to list all items that could potentially be included on the preliminary plat without requiring that all items actually appear on the plat for each case. Groger stated that he would be in favor of proceeding on this item. He indicated that the items missing from the plat are not critical to the decision of the Planning Commission and that it would be a tremendous waste of time for people who have appeared to discuss the issue to leave it tabled. McAleese responded that proceeding with the P.U.D. when the Commission does not have the authority to do so could result in the decision being challenged. Moved by Groger, seconded by Eck, to bring the matter back on the table. McAleese opposed. Motion passed. City Planner Dan Olson stated that after reviewing the revised Preliminary Design Plan submitted by SVK, the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning to the City Council. He stated that the rezoning has not yet gone to the City Council. He indicated that the applicant met with City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, and the City Planning and Development Director, Mark Grimes, and has submitted a revised Preliminary Design Plan for review by the Planning Commission. Olson stated that Oliver, who has concluded that the major issues have been resolved, has reviewed the revised plan. Chair Pentel asked for further detail regarding what issues specifically have been resolved and those that remain unresolved. Olson stated that the outstanding issues are technical minor design issues that do not impact the P.U.D. Chair Pentel asked specifically about the ponding issue. Olson responded that the ponding issue has been resolved with the revised design. Olson stated that the applicant has revised the site plan to include a 50-foot street right-of-way. Previously, this right-of-way narrowed to a 38-foot right of way near the cul-de-sac. In regard to the zoning requirements of the Residential zoning district, Olson stated that all lots for single-family homes must be at least 10,000 square feet in area and be at least 80 feet wide at the front setback line. He stated that lots 6, 8 and 10 still do not meet these requirements. He indicated that lots 3,7,9 and 10 meet the lot area requirement. Olson stated that, with the exception of the existing single-family home on lot 8, none of the single-family homes meet the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. The front setbacks range from 15 to 21 feet. The rear yard setback requirement is 20% of lot depth, and all of the lots meet this setback requirement. He stated that the side setback requirements vary depending on the lot width and that lots 2, 6 and 10 do not meet the side yard setback Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 4 requirements. Olson stated that staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89 subjecUo the following recommendations: 1. The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memo dated October 16, 2000 become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated July 26, 2000 become a part of this approval. 3. Dedication of 7 feet of additional right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue as has been requested by Hennepin County. 4. The homeowner's association for the development may establish more restrictive property regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of such provisions shall be the responsibility of the association. The association shall not establish. property restrictions in violation of applicable federal, state or local regulations including the terms of the approved P.U.D. permit. - 5. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part of the plat name. 6. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are issued. Olson suggested that the additional items addressed by McAleese be added to the recommendation. Chair Pentel suggested that the recommendations of the City Engineer as found in his memo dated August 10, 2000 also be included in the approval. _ Groger questioned which lots meet the minimum width requirement. He stated that it appears that none of the lots, with the exception of Lot 10, meet the minimum width requirement. Grimes stated that the lot width is determined at the 35-foot front setback line. Pentel questioned if this is an accurate method of calculating the lot width requirement for these lots when the front setbacks to be used range from 15 to 21 feet. Olson responded that he would review the setback requirements on the lots. McAleese stated that the approval of the P.U.D. does not mean that the Commission has the authority to waive the requirements of other City codes such as the Subdivision codes. He stated that street width requirements are included in the subdivision code and that the proposed street does not meet the requirements. Olson responded that according to the City Engineer a 50-foot right of way is sufficient for this development. McAleese stated that according to the code the P.U.D. must comply with all the subdivision requirements. He indicated that only the City Council has the authority to waive compliance with the subdivision code. To request such a waiver, the applicant must apply in writing for a variance when the preliminary plat is submitted to the Planning Commission. e .e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 5 Grimes suggested that the Commission table the item until the required information can be included. He stated that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved to have all of the required information before proceeding with a recommendation to the City Council. Groger asked if there is a question as to the validity of this proposal as a P.U.D. McAleese responded that it is eligible for consideration under the P.U.D. ordinance. Olson stated that staff would gather the required information. He suggested that the question of the proposal's validity as a P.U.D. be addressed as part of the general discussion. Moved by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and passed unanimously, to table the review until the required information can be included. III. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU14-10) Applicant: Honeywell, Inc. Address: Southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Sandburg Road - portion of Honeywell, Inc. located at 1885 - 1985 Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots along Sandburg Road at the corner of Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive Grimes stated that, at their September 25 meeting, the Planning Commission had voted to recommend to the City Council that this application be denied. He indicated that the City Council reviewed the recommendation at their October 10 meeting. He stated that he had suggested four possible actions that could be taken by the City Council: 1) follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the application, 2) approve the proposed plat, 3) approve the revised plat, or 4) refer back to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Council decided to refer it back to the Planning Commission for their review since they felt that the revisions to the plat were fairly significant. Grimes stated that Honeywell has tried to address the concerns of the Planning Commission in their revised plat. He indicated that they have changed the proposed driveway cuts, moving the main drive so that it is 400 feet from Douglas Drive. He stated that the driveway itself is on Lot 2 (west lot) but also provides access to Lot 1 (east lot). A 132,000 square foot office/warehouse building is proposed for Lot 2. A 32,000 square foot office building is proposed for Lot 1. Grimes stated that their proposal includes sufficient parking but recommended proof of parking since all of the parking is not needed at this time. Grimes stated that the Planning Commission had questions regarding the original rezoning of this property in 1956. Grimes indicated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 6 . he had researched the original rezoning and reported that there was some controversy around the original decision, which was opposed by 1200 people. He indicated that one of the main reasons for the opposition was access to the site. At the time, Douglas Drive ended at Golden Valley Road and Duluth Street did not yet exist. He also indicated that there were some restrictions put on the development for 1 0 years~ These restrictions stated that no building or other structure would be built within 200 feet of the easterly boundary or within 100 feet of the northerly or southerly boundaries, and that no more than 34 acres of the entire site would contain structures. Grimes stated that the Commission had also been concerned with the odd configuration of the lot where the existing Honeywell building is located. He stated that Honeywell feels it is necessary to own the property where the utility building is located which results in an odd shaped lot. e Pentel asked how trucks would move around the building on Lot 2. Grimes responded that the City Building Officials and the City Engineer would review the plan to make sur~ it meets all requirements for fire and safety. Pentel stated that there are test wells on the property and asked if they will be removed to allow for the new construction. Grimes responded that this is an issue that Honeywell will need to resolve with the Pollution Control Agency. McAleese asked if the lots would still be buildable if the test wells cannot be moved. Shaffer responded that wells could be located in parking lots and even inside buildings, if necessary. Pentel suggested that the Commission recommend that a sidewalk be located along the south side of Sandburg Road. Shaffer stated that the sidewalk should be part of the development. Grimes responded that, generally, the City prefers to maintain sidewalks and would ask that the sidewalk be located on a street or utility easement. -- Pentel recommended that a berm be built along the east side of Lot 2 to prevent views of semi-trucks from Douglas Drive. Groger responded that he did not believe there was room between the two lots for berming. Groger expressed concern with inaccuracies in the proposed parking plan. He stated that, according to the plan provided, the applicant falls short of meeting the parking requirements by approximately 500 spaces. He stated that this is the largest industrial property in Golden Valley and it is important that City Code requirements are met. He stated that the applicant should provide a detailed plan showing proof of parking for 2,500 spaces. He added that the size of the existing parking spaces does not meet City code. McAleese expressed concern regarding parking should warehouse space be converted to office space in the future. Grimes stated that any conversion to office space would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 7 require a building permit and, to obtain the permit, the applicant would be required to show proof of parking. Pentel expressed concern regarding increased traffic on Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive. Grimes stated that the buildings will be located on streets where there is capacity to handle the added traffic. Pentel added that, since all the parking lots will be connected, traffic could enter and exit on both Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive at the main Honeywell entrance. . McAleese asked for clarification on the difference between a driveway and a private street. He indicated that the driveway on Lot 2 appears to be a private street. He stated that he felt the access on the south side of the lot to the Honeywell lot creates a private street. Grimes responded that there is only one driveway cut and it provides good access for emergency vehicles. McAleese stated that he would prefer closing the access between the lots. Jerry Duffing, attorney for Industrial Equities, was present. He stated Mr. Allen was unable to be present due to flight difficulties. He stated that they meet all the requirements for a preliminary plat and have the legal right to have it approved. Pentel stated that the Commission must address their concerns at this time, since the applicant does not come before them after the preliminary plat is approved. Duffing responded that he could not answer the questions in regards to the parking. He suggested that the approval be conditioned on meeting the parking requirements. Chair Pentel opened the public hearing: - James R. Olson, representing 2210 Douglas Drive North stated his concern regarding the uncertainties created by the fact that the buildings are speculative and it is unknown at this time who the tenants will be. He expressed concern regarding the maximum potential truck traffic, general traffic and parking. He suggested that an environmental impact study might be appropriate. He expressed additional concern regarding the purchase of Honeywell by GE, which may result in further changes to the ownership and occupant of the existing Honeywell building. Armand Maanum of 2300 Douglas Drive North stated his objection to the proposal. He expressed concern with the size of the building, the parking situation and the increase in traffic. He stated that the City notifies residents within 500 feet and that this will affect residents in a larger surrounding area. He suggested that these residents would be attending the hearing to object if they knew about the proposal. He further objected to the appearance of truck loading docks, which will be visible from Douglas Drive. He added that, in the winter, piles of snow generally take up a large number of parking spaces, making them unavailable for parking. Chair Pentel closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 8 In response, Grimes stated that this project would not meet the threshold for an environmental impact study. He stated that the City is required to notify residents within 500 feet by State law. He indicated that the City notifies residents within 650 feet. In regards to outside storage at loading docks, Grimes stated that outside storage is prohibited by City Gode. Pentel asked how the code is enforced. Grimes responded that it is enforced on a complaint basis. Groger referred to the restrictions in the original rezoning, specifically that no building could be built within 200 feet of Douglas Drive. He requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding whether or not this restriction is governed by the 10-year provision. McAleese stated that he would be voting against this proposal since it does not meet the requirements of the subdivision code due to the parking issue. Groger requested. verification of the size of the existing structure to ensure accurate . calculation of the parking requirement. He stated that he would not be comfortable approving a project of this size with a condition in regards to the parking. Pentel agreed that clear and accurate parking information is needed to make a recommendation to the Council. Eck stated that he would vote in favor of the proposal if the proof of parking can be stated as a specific condition. Moved by Rasmussen, seconded by Eck, to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon resolution of the proof of parking issue before it is presented to the City Council. Shaffer asked if the item could be tabled. Grimes responded that this item must be before the City Council by December 5th. He indicated that the City has already ~ requested one 60-day extension. He stated that it may be possible to obtain an ~ additional60-day extension but he would need to discuss this with the City Attorney. Groger summarized the issues of concern: proof of parking, verification of square footage of the existing structure, legal opinion regarding driveway vs. private street, legal opinion regarding the original rezoning from 1956 and whether or not all restrictions are governed by the ten year clause. He indicated that these issues should be addressed before making a recommendation to the City Council. Shaffer agreed that the item should be tabled until we have the information that is needed to make a recommendation. Rasmussen stated that proof of parking and the square footage of the building is information that can be gathered quite easily. She stated that the Commission frequently recommends approval with certain conditions. - - Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 9 Grimes stated that the Council has until the 5th of December to approve the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission will meet again on Monday, November 13th and the City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 21st. Motion was withdrawn by Rasmussen. Moved by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and passed unanimously, to table this item based upon lack of information regarding proof of parking, square footage of the building, legal opinion regarding the definition of a driveway vs. a private street, and a legal opinion regarding the original rezoning from 1956 and whether all restrictions are governed by the ten year clause. Grimes stated that he would discuss the 60-day deadline with the City Attorney and call a special meeting if needed. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings None V. Other Business None VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Richard Groger, Secretary