Loading...
11-26-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 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, November 26,2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - November 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting McAleese referred to page six of the minutes and requested that the conditions from the staff memo be added to the motion for approval for BP Con nect. He referred again to page six and asked if the Planning Commission could legally attach conditions to a subdivision. Grimes stated he would be discussing that issue with the City Attorney. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 12, 2001 minutes with the above noted correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - Amendment to P .U.D. No. 95 - Applicant: Carousel Automobiles Address: 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. Amendment would allow for the construction of a new parking lot and storm water retention pond on a triangular piece of property at the new Carousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently under construction. Olson showed the location of the site and referred to his memo dated November 21,2001. He stated that this request is to amend an existing PUD to allow for a new parking lot with 67 parking spaces and a storm water retention pond. He stated that the setback requirement of 35 feet is not being met in a small area along Miller Street and the setback along the east side of the property next to the St. Louis Park nature area has a proposed setback of 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet. He discussed the tree preservation plan and stated that they are leaving the trees in the setback areas, as well as replanting several new trees and taking some trees down. He stated that the environmental coordinator, AI Lundstrom, has reviewed the plans and agrees that they are meeting the tree preservation ordinance requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 2 Olson stated that the area would only be for the storage of new cars and that no large semi drop-offs of cars will occur in that area. He stated that there will be some lighting in the area for security purposes but it will be much less intense than what is on the main sales area of the site. Pentel noted that the proposal indicated 18-foot long parking stalls and asked if that is considered adequate. Olson stated the requirement is 9 feet x 20 feet. Grimes stated that the City likes to see larger parking spaces when they are used for customer parking but since the proposed use is for the storage of cars only it shouldn't be a problem. Eck questioned the use of the word "display" on page two of Olson's memo. Olson clarified that the parking spaces in question would only be used for storage. Eck stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the original proposal he remembered the applicant stating that it was unfeasible to put a retention pond on the triangular piece of property and questioned how they are able to do it now. Grimes explained that there is going to be a pond on the north piece of property for that part of the site and an additional pond on the triangular parcel just for south part of the site. Groger stated that using the setback area for the display of cars on the north side of the road was an issue the last time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and noticed that on this proposal the applicant is showing display area within those setbacks. Shaffer referred to the site plans and stated that the previous proposal had an additional area along the curve that they wanted to use for display, but that this proposal doesn't have that additional space. Hoffman referred to the additional lighting being proposed and asked if the hours of operation would be changing or if the applicant was going to start selling cars on that property. Olson stated that there would be no sales of cars on the triangular piece of property at all. Grimes stated that there has to be some sort of lighting on the site 24 hours a day for public safety purposes. Rasmussen referred to the site plan and asked if the ten-foot setback area abuts a wall. Olson stated that it does abut a wall. Rasmussen asked if the City currently has any ordinances regarding outside storage. Olson stated that in the Industrial Zoning district all outside storage is supposed to be screened. Grimes stated that the sale of cars is permitted in the Industrial Zoning district and that this is a different situation compared to other types of industrial uses where screening would be required. Jon Baker, 100 South 5th Street, Minneapolis, architect for the project, referred to the site plans and discussed the various variance requests. He reviewed the landscaping plan and stated that they intend to add several four-inch caliper trees to the site, which are 20 feet in height to start with and would grow to be 40 to 50 feet in height. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2001 Page 3 stated that the triangular piece of property is exclusively for the storage of cars and discussed how this proposal is different from the original proposal. Pentel asked what the height of the light poles would be on the triangular piece of property. Baker stated that they haven't done a precise lighting plan yet, but that he guessed they would be about 14 feet tall. Pentel stated that would be two feet higher than the wall and asked if there would be lights would be on 24 hours a day. Baker stated there would be low- level security lighting on 24 hours day but it would be minimal. Pentel asked the applicant if it would be a hardship to have 12-foot high light poles instead of the proposed14 feet high light poles. Baker stated that he wasn't sure if light poles come in that size, but stated that they could try to stay in that range. Jon Hansen, 8989 Wayzata Blvd., President of Carousel Automobiles, stated that he's made a pledge to the neighbors that the lighting will be cut-off from their property and they won't be able to see the glare of the lamps. Baker described the type of light fixture being proposed and stated that he would do a detailed footcandle plan. Pentel opened the public hearing. Beth Dahl, 1311 Flag Avenue S., St. Louis Park, submitted a petition from the residents in the neighborhood and stated that the main concern of the residents is that this development will remove the barrier trees. She stated that her house is on a hill and when the trees are gone, she would be looking right at the Carousel Audi parking lot. She stated she did not oppose the proposal at first, but she didn't realize to what degree she would be looking at these buildings. She stated that she never would have bought her house had she been able to see TH169, TH394 and Carousel Audi and that the trees that are there now are the only things that serve as a barrier. She asked the applicant what kind of trees they are proposing to plant. Baker referred to the landscape plan and discussed the various types of trees and landscaping that they would be planting. Dahl stated that she is concerned about the lighting from the parking lot and buildings shining into her living room window. Denise Carpenter, 1321 Flag Avenue S., St. Louis Park, stated that she thinks there should be a buffer maintained because of what she has seen with the fate of some of the trees from the first part of the construction. She stated that there is nothing left there of the vegetation except for a few scrawny trees along Miller Street. She stated she doesn't have much faith that the applicant is going to save the trees that are still there and that the loss of the trees are going to significantly impact a lot of people in the area. She stated she would be able to see lights from the businesses, the Audi Dealership and TH394 and that's not a pleasant view. She stated she was concerned about the impact on traffic on Miller Street and having an entrance on that street could be a detriment. She stated that if the applicant is intending to use the triangular piece of property for secured parking that it seems to her that planting a heavy series of trees and vegetation along the street would be against their best interest and negate what they are doing. Pentel closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 4 Pentel stated that she would not support any development on this piece of property that encroached on the setbacks. She stated that she felt the 10-foot setback proposed on the east side should be 25 feet according to City regulations. She stated she appreciates the increased vegetation, but the pond itself and the excayation of the pond is going to remove a lot of the trees that act as a buffer to the neighborhood. She stated that this proposal is different from the previous one the Planning Commission saw but it is still not keeping setbacks that the City Code requires. Groger asked if the pond is a legal requirement and if the size of the property is large enough that is requires a pond. Grimes stated whenever more than half an acre is being disturbed in the Bassett Creek Water Management Area applicants have to meet water quality standards. He stated that the applicant would have to build the pond to the requirements of the Watershed District because more than half an acre is being disturbed in this case. Groger asked if there would be any signage on this particular piece of property. Hansen stated that the only signs that would be on the triangular piece of property are the stickers on the cars, which list the car's options. Hansen commented about the neighbors concerns about them cutting down all the trees on the north part of the site. He stated that in the original plans that were approved there weren't any undisturbed areas and the whole site had to be disturbed for re-grading and soil correction. He stated that he talked to the manager of the park reserve to the east and that he is fine with the 10-foot setback being proposed. He referred to several other properties along the wall that are closer than 10 feet to the wall. He stated that the 25-foot setback is assuming there is no wall there and he hoped the Commission would take that into consideration and that having a 25-foot setback along the wall wouldn't really help the neighbors. He clarified that the pond does meet the requirements of the City and the Watershed District. Rasmussen asked if ponding was required for water quality or if they could put in a storm sewer for drainage. Pentel stated that the ponds are used not just for drainage but also for the settling of solids. Rasmussen asked the applicants if there was any way they could make the neighbors happier with the screening and still use this piece of property. Baker stated that working with the shape of this piece of property and the setback requirements has been a challenge. He stated that they have met with the neighbors and it was his understanding that their concerns had been satisfied in regards to the setback changes, landscaping and lighting design. He stated that this is a minimal layout from what they had originally anticipated and he can't think of any way to make it better. He stated that in contrast, with the zoning that this property exists under, a building, or something more obtrusive to their visual site lines, could be built there. Rasmussen asked if the large trees would have to go in any of the scenarios they looked at. Baker stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 5 most of the larger trees are spread throughout the property and the whole site has to be re-graded. Pentel stated that she is impressed with the quality of the construction on the site so far. Eck stated that this is an unfortunate situation where it is essentially impossible to do anything with this piece of property that is not going to impact the neighbors in some way and without totally denying the owner the use of the land, the neighbors can't be totally insulated from some impact of this development. He stated that the architect has done a good job to try to minimize the impact of the development on the neighborhood to the south. He stated that having a 10-foot setback on the east side of the property against the retaining wall does not bother him. He doesn't see that there is any negative impact in reducing that setback, in favor of increasing the setback on the south and supports the proposal as is. Shaffer agreed with Eck and stated that if the applicant were to put the parking lot fully within all the setback lines they could then put the pond within the 50-foot setback area, which would take out all the trees and meet all of the guidelines, but not help the neighbors at all. He stated that this proposal pushes the setback along the wall, but he doesn't have a problem with that. He stated the City would be allowing a few small variances, but they are not severe and it is the best compromise in his opinion. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried to approve Amendment No.1 to P.U.D. No. 95 Carousel Porsche Audi which would allow for the construction of a new parking lot and storm water retention pond on a triangular piece of property at the new Carousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently under construction. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All signs for the Carousel Porsche Audi development shall meet the requirements for automobile dealerships in the Industrial zoning district. 2. The recommendation of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver found in his memo to Mark Grimes dated November 21, 2001 shall become part of this approval. 3. The height of the light poles should be limited to 12 feet in height. 4. The landscape plans should be reviewed to help alleviate the impact to the neighbors to the south. 5. The landscape plans should include some vegetation along the east wall. Chair Pentel voted against the proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2001 Page 6 -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Shaffer discussed the next Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting. IV. Other Business Grimes stated that there would be a Planning Commission Meeting on December 17, 2001 and cancelled the meeting scheduled for December 10, 2001. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm.