Loading...
06-25-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 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, June 25,2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - May 21,2001 Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission; June 11, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Pentel stated that in the May 21, 2001 minutes on page 2, in paragraph 8, the word "cite" was misspelled. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 21,2001 minutes with the above correction. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 11, 2001 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - P .U.D. No. 95 Applicant: Carousel Automobiles Address: Property west of 8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of a new Carousel Porsche Audi automobile dealership on property formerly owned by General Mills. Olson referred to his memo dated June 20, 2001. He showed the general location and proposed site plan. Groger asked if the proposal included the triangular shaped piece of property located to the south, across the frontage road. Olson stated that the proposal does include that piece of property. Olson explained that the development would allow for the construction of two buildings for an automobile dealership, and would be located just west of the property of the current Carousel Porsche Audi dealership, which is at 8989 Wayzata Boulevard. He stated the overall development is 9.88 acres and stated the size of the Porsche building would be 13,400 square feet and the Audi building would 38,000 square feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25,2001 Page 2 He stated that the applicant may enlarge the Audi building in the future by adding an additional 1 ,760 square feet of building space to the north side of the building which would eliminate 19 parking spaces on that side of the building. Olson stated that the underlying zoning classification for this property is Industrial. He stated that the parking space requirements for that zoning district have been met and that they would have 126 spaces. He stated that they would also have 477 parking spaces for displaying automobiles. Olson stated that since this development abuts two state highways, the site plans were forwarded to MnDOT for their review and comments. He stated that to date, those comments have not yet been received. He stated a copy of the hearing notice for the Planning Commission meeting was also sent to the City of St. Louis Park since the property abuts the boundary. Olson explained why he didn't go into great detail about the setbacks required in the Industrial Zoning District versus the setbacks listed on the site plans in his staff report because the City Attorney recommended that this PUD should be considered as it's own entity rather than getting variances from the Industrial Zoning District. Olson referred to one area on the site plan, which showed a zero foot setback along Miller Street for an automobile display area in front of the Audi building. Pentel stated that developers have always been asked to justify the variances they are asking for when applying for a PUD. She asked Olson to go through the site plans and explain what variances the applicant is asking for that they would not get under the City's normal zoning regulations. Olson went over the site plans and discussed the various setbacks. Pentel referred to the wall pictured on the site plans and asked.if it was inside or outside of the property line. Olson stated he believed the wall was outside of the property and showed the Commission an aerial photo of the site. He referred to the wall and the homes to the south of the wall and to the nature area to the east. Groger asked what the setback requirement is from the nature area. Olson stated the requirement would be 25 feet, but that the applicant is proposing 8 feet. Eck asked if under normal zoning the triangular piece of property to the south would be usable. Olson stated that it would be unusable because it would have a 35-foot setback along Miller Street, a 25-foot from the nature area and a 50-foot parking lot setback on the south side. Pentel asked if the proposal meets the 35-foot setback along Miller Street. Olson stated that it does. Pentel asked if it was all right if ponds go into the setbacks. Olson stated yes. Pentel asked about the setbacks along Flag Avenue which is being vacated. Olson stated the setback along Flag Avenue would be 10 feet and the setbacks along Miller Street, TH 169 and 1-394 would be 35 feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25,2001 Page 3 Olson referred back to his memo and discussed the City Engineer's memo dated June 20, 2001 and stated that staff is recommending approval of the plan. Pentel asked where the applicant was proposing to put the pylon sign. Olson stated that would be a question for the applicant. Rasmussen asked if there are public safety reasons for having the 35-foot setback along Miller Street or if it is for aesthetic reasons. Olson stated it is mainly for aesthetic reasons. Jon Baker, 100 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, architect for the project referred to the site plans and discussed the general layout of the site and the parking setbacks. He showed pictures of the proposed buildings and discussed the setbacks in various areas. He showed the areas where they won't meet the setbacks and stated that part of the reason for the variances is due to the odd angles of the lot. He then discussed the traffic flow and showed where the customer and display parking areas would be and where the trucks would load and unload. Pentel asked if they were proposing one pylon or two pylon signs. Baker stated he believed it would be one pylon and stated they would like to place a sign that would be at the appropriate height in relationship to the rest of dealerships. Pentel asked what the regulations are regarding moving board signs. Grimes stated that moving signs are permitted in the City of Golden Valley, however, they have to show a certain amount of public service items on them and that the applicant would have to follow the sign ordinance. Baker stated that the design standards established by Porsche and Audi are very strict and that the intent is not to have an animated sign. Eck stated that he noticed that some of the fencing at the different dealerships in the area has barbed wire at the top and that some areas are unfenced. He asked what determines the kind of fencing used. Baker stated that some dealerships put fencing where the customer's cars are stored. He stated he wasn't sure how much fencing they would need. Jon Hansen, President of Lejune Investment, which is the owner. of the dealership stated that when they purchased the existing properties the fencing was already up and that it's worked well for them so they've just kept it up. He stated that because of the visibility at the proposed site, and the insurance liability, they would prefer not to put fencing up, but they would like to see how it goes with theft and possibly put the fencing up at a later date. Pentel asked if they were to meet the setbacks required by the City on the piece of property to the south how that would impact the proposal. Hansen stated that already they are not getting as many parking spaces as they originally had planned for when they purchased the property, and that anytime they lose parking spaces it is a concern. He stated that they did look at putting the pond on that piece of property to south, but then they would have to pipe water under the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 4 Pentel opened the public hearing. Lori Kirk, 1301 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, asked if the City of St. Louis Park received notification of this hearing. Olson stated that St. Louis Park was notified approximately two weeks ago. Grimes stated he talked to one of the staff member at St. Louis Park and they did say they got the notice, but it is their decision as to whether they pass on the information or not. Kirk asked what the radius is for the hearing notification for the people that are directly affected. Pentel stated that the radius is 500 feet. Kirk stated that she lives directly south of the wall mentioned on the site plans and that she has received no notification of the proposal. She asked that the Planning Commission table their discussions until the neighborhood has proper notification. She asked if there was a precedent anywhere in the City of Golden Valley for granting variances for parking lots being eight feet from residential areas and wetland areas. Grimes stated that the City has allowed variances in several cases for parking areas next to freeway walls and that's what they are proposing to do in this case. Kirk asked if the City of Golden Valley is legally required to notify people in a 500-foot radius of proposals like this. Grimes stated the position of the City of Golden Valley is to notify the adjoining city and leave it up to them to notify their residents. Pentel stated that it's a boundary issue and as a good neighbor, Golden Valley notifies adjoining cities, but that we don't have other cities resident addresses in our database and it's up to the adjoining city to notify their residents. Kirk asked if she has a legal right to know. Pentel stated she didn't know that, but she is assuming that she does have the legal right to know because she lives within 350 feet of the proposal, but in terms of who is supposed to give the notification she stated she thinks it's her own jurisdiction and that Golden Valley's necessity ends with notifying the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes explained that there is going to be two more hearings on this proposal and that when he spoke to staff at St. Louis Park they've said they are going to send notification when this proposal goes to the City Council. Kirk requested again that the proposal be tabled and stated she is concerned about having a parking lot and truck noise eight feet from her bedroom window. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel asked the commissioners how they felt about tabling the proposal. Groger stated he thought Staff followed normal procedure in accordance to what the City Attorney has recommended in regards to notifying people and thought the Planning Commission should proceed. Grimes stated he would again talk to staff at St. Louis Park and ask them to notify the residents within whatever they feel is a proper distance. Pentel asked about the eastern boundary of the southern portion and how far it is to the wetland edge from the wall and where the wetlands begin. Olson referred to the aerial photo and estimated that the wall is probably about 400 to 500 feet away from the edge of the wetland. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 5 Groger asked for clarification on the setbacks along the highway. Pentel asked if there is also a variance from what the normal setback would be from MnDot property on the north side. Grimes stated whenever abutting a right-of-way the setback is 35 feet. Pentel stated she is disturbed about the bump-out display area for cars being in the 35- foot setback area on Miller Street. She stated she doesn't like the variances that are being proposed in the southern, triangular shaped property and stated concerns about the two curb cuts, relaxing the City's setback standards, losing green space and the natural infiltration that now occurs. Groger stated he disagrees with City Staff on their interpretation of PUD's. He stated it seems there is an opinion that once they've decided that there will be a PUD that setbacks and other issues go out the window and it is just expected that there will be substantial variances. He stated that if there is a benefit to City, that may be the case, but in a new development that is being created from scratch he doesn't see a need in allowing substantial variances to the City's setback requirements. He stated he's not in favor of the proposal as it is, but that the land use is fine. Shaffer suggested that the pond be moved to the southern, triangular piece of property to keep the parking out of that area. Pentel stated she would be more comfortable with the pond on the southern piece of property also. Shaffer stated the only setback he is concerned about is the one along Miller Street. He then suggested different options for ponds and parking. Grimes stated that they should talk to the project engineer about these options. Chris Call, Landform Engineering Company, 510 First Avenue North, Minneapolis stated that he did look at putting the pond on the southern piece of property and that part of the problem is that the storm water from the site is picked up by MnDot's storm sewer system which is located on the northeast corner of the site and that is also the lowest part of the site and to put in on the southern parcel would be working against nature. He stated that as far as piping the storm water under the street to the southern parcel, he wasn't sure how the City Engineer would feel about that considering it would have to be piped back up to the northeast corner. He stated that he did some calculations regarding setbacks and they are giving an additional 352 square feet of setback area along Miller Street to the City. Rasmussen asked if the pond that is shown on the southern, triangular property could be moved from the side to the bottom of the triang Ie to act as a buffer. Call stated that again, the pond is on the lowest part of the site and berms would have to be built to make it work. Eck asked if the wall limits the view of the site, or if it's a noise issue rather than an issue of seeing the trucks and cars parked on the site. Grimes stated that the noise in the parking lot would not be any greater than the existing noise that is there now from the freeways other than perhaps when they are loading or unloading cars. Eck asked at what hours the loading and unloading of cars would occur. Hansen stated that cars have to be checked in by staff so if it's the middle of the night, the drivers Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 6 would have to wait. Pentel asked if the trucks would idle while they waited. Hansen stated in the wintertime they would. Grimes suggested putting something in the PUD Permit about the loading and unloading of trucks could only occur on the west side. Hansen suggested maybe decreasing the setback along Miller Street and increasing it along the wall. Eck stated that given the fact that the neighbors aren't able to see what's on the other side of the wall it seems the primary concern should be noise. Pentel stated that there is noise and there is also precedent in terms of what to do with the setbacks against a residential area. Grimes stated the biggest impact to the area would be cutting down the trees. Hansen stated that the majority of the trees are going to be cut down whether it becomes a pond or a parking lot and even if it were to stay green space they would still be cut down because they are cottonwoods. Pentel asked about the size of the triangular piece of property. Hansen stated it was 1.33 acres. Grimes stated that parcel could stand on its own and there could be a building constructed there. He stated it's quite unusual to have a twelve-foot wall along a property line and it was put there for a reason. McAleese stated that the wall is irrelevant as far as variances are concerned. He stated there are two issues, one is setting a precedent and the other is the noise. He stated the variances that are being requested on the northern part of the property seem reasonable, but he doesn't like the proposed bump-out area for displaying cars. He stated that the City should hold to strict requirements on the southern parcel and supports the 50-foot setback for the south property line and a 25-foot setback on the east property line on that southern parcel. Shaffer stated he's also concerned about the southern piece of property and asked the architect if he had looked at other alternatives for getting the parking spaces there into other areas. Baker stated they've looked at dozens of different layouts for this project for both the north half and the south half. He stated it's an inefficient lot because of its triangular shape and that putting the pond on the south half of the property is just not feasible because of conflicts with utilities. He stated the only way to accommodate the setback requirements on the south piece of property is to reduce the number of parking space by approximately 50%. He addressed the issue of the bump-out area and explained that it is there to allow some sort of recognition of an element that has a relationship to the center of the building and to reinforce where the entrance is to the building and to have some continuity to the site. He stated that it doesn't need to be as big as they've proposed but feels it is important, architecturally, that there is a sign or some sort of site element there. Shaffer stated he understands why the bump-out area is there, but thinks the presentation space could be within the parking area without losing too many spaces. He asked since a lot of the parking is for storage, if any of the parking could be tandem parking especially on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 7 south lot. Baker stated that they could consider that option in the south lot. Shaffer asked if they could rearrange the parking configuration on the south lot so there would only need to be one curb cut. Baker stated that if there were a condition that they couldn't use the south lot for loading and unloading that would be a possibility. Pentel stated that she doesn't want to see tandem parking across from Miller Street. She stated that she wouldn't support any encroachment on the setbacks on the south piece of property. She stated that the Planning Commission shouldn't be designing this for them. Shaffer stated he was trying to look at different aspects of the project and asking questions about other alternatives. Rasmussen stated it's an appropriate land use but there is nothing that can be done about the noise and that the land is still going to be used for parking. She stated that she thinks tandem parking is a good idea and is in favor of passing it on, with the Planning Commission's concerns, to the Council. She stated it is a commercial piece of property and the screening had been looked at very carefully and that by sticking with the setbacks on the southern piece of property, that's the best the City could do. Grimes stated that if that wall wasn't there, the City would have looked at this very differently and that there is no benefit to the green space against a wall. McAleese stated he disagreed and that green space is beneficial virtually any place. He stated he understands the rationale of the developer and that overall they have a good plan, but he's concerned about preserving the green space on the south piece of land and would like to make it a recommendation to the Council to preserve the normal setback requirements on the southern parcel. Eck asked if the vacation of Flag Avenue would allow for more parking options. Call stated that there is a utility easement there. Grimes stated that the additional property from the vacation would be going to the existing property and not to this new development. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi, PUD No. 95 with the conditions listed in staff memos from the City Planner, the City Engineer and the City Deputy Fire Marshal and also with the following recommendations: The loading and unloading of trucks would occur north of Miller Street, an attempt to retain a 50-foot setback on the south side and a 25-foot setback on the east side on the southern piece of property and the bump-out north of Miller Street would not be allowed within the setbacks. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 8 IV. Other Business McAleese stated that Council Member LeSuer would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation for a new PUD ordinance that would expand the Planning Commissioners roles and he would present it to the Council. There was discussion about rather than making just a few changes to the PUD ordinance they would like to change the fundamental way that it is written and keep the Planning Commission as the keeper of the City Code. Grimes recommended putting some money in the budget to allow them to hire a consultant to help them rewrite the PUD Ordinance. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.