Loading...
05-13-02 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 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, May 13, 2002. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel (arrived at 7:50 PM) and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson. (Note: The minutes of the meeting were transcribed by Lisa Wittman, Recording Secretary, using the videotape recording of the meeting.) I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting e Groger referred to page two, paragraph eight and stated that "Luke" Street should be changed "Lake Street". McAleese brought to staffs attention that Chair Pentel had an addition to the April 11, 2002 minutes. Staff contacted Pentel and she added the following under section five, other business: "Pentel stated she has concerns about telecommunications towers being allowed in Multiple Family Zoning Districts." MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 22, 2002 minutes with the above noted change and addition. - II. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-96) Applicants: Minnetonka Motor Car Sales, Inc. (dba Morrie's Mazda) Address: 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the above public hearing was a continuation from the April 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed the site plan and reiterated that this use is similar to the way Avis Rental Cars used the site in the past. He discussed the concerns the neighbors had about lighting and stated that they have mentioned that if the lighting is the same as it was with the previous occupant they would be okay with that. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 2 Grimes stated that the site would have 57 parking space and the hours would be 9 AM to 8 PM Monday-Thursday and 9 AM to 6 PM Friday and Saturday. He stated that the City reserves the right to review the lighting plan and discussed the conditions listed in his memo dated April 18, 2002. Debbie Tufts, 13700 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, representing the applicant apologized for not being at the April 11 Planning Commission meeting and stated that Morrie's goal is to upgrade the property. She explained that they would be selling late year, high-end vehicles. She stated that the vehicles would be delivered to the Minnetonka store and individually driven to the Golden Valley location so there would be no large trucks dropping off vehicles on this site. .. Eck stated that this is a relatively small site and asked what the primary objective is. Tufts stated that Morrie's goal is to provide personalized service and that it is easier to e do that with a smaller site versus a large site. Hoffman asked what kind of upgrading they are planning for the building. Tufts stated they would be sandblasting the outside of the building, adding a ramp and upgrading the interior. Hoffman asked how many vehicles they would have on the site at one time. Tufts stated that their goal is to sell 30 to 40 vehicles per month and that they would probably have approximately 50 vehicles on the lot. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, Shaffer closed the public hearing. e Eck stated that if the lighting issues are satisfied he would be in favor of this proposal. Shaffer stated that low hedges around the parking area to shield headlights would be a good idea. McAleese stated that he would like to add to condition number two that no cars are to be parked in landscaped areas including setbacks. He also wants to add as a twelfth condition that all applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met including the City's building, landscaping and fire codes. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district with the following conditions: 1. The site and building layouts submitted with the CUP application becomes a part of this approval. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 3 2. There shall be no more than 57 total cars on the site. All cars must be parked in designated parking spaces. At least 6 spaces shall be designated for employees and 10 spaces for customers. There shall be no parking on any landscaped areas including setbacks. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 AM to 8 PM Monday-Thursday, and 9 AM to 6 PM Friday-Saturday. There shall be no car sales on Sunday although the offices can be used. 4. City staff must approve any outdoor lighting plan. The City reserves the right to require that a lighting consultant chosen by the City to review any plan. The cost of the review would be born by Morrie's. After business hours, the lighting must be turned down to provide only security-type lighting. . 5. No repair or maintenance work will be done on site other than car washing. 6. Any signage on the site shall meet the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 7. There shall be no signage painted on any vehicle or window of any vehicle. There shall be no signage painted or placed on the inside or outside of any window of the building. 8. The display of balloons or other inflatable devices is prohibited. Any type of searchlights or laser lights is also prohibited. 9. The building may be used for the display of up to three vehicles along with offices. The basement may be used for storage. The Director of Inspections must first approve the display of vehicles in the building. 10. No outside speakers are to be used at this site. 11. Any outside trash containers must be screened with materials similar to that of the building. 12. All applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met including the City's building, landscaping and fire codes. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: Robbinsdale School District No. 281 Address: Institutional (1-1) Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to add "School District Offices" as a Conditional Use to the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning districts. Grimes stated that School District 281 is proposing to change the text in the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning district to allow school district offices as a conditional use. He discussed the mold and mildew problems the applicants are having in their existing building and stated they would like to use Olson School for their district offices because it is in a good location and is vacant. He stated that it is Staff's opinion that offices at this location would not be appropriate at this point with the way the Zoning Code is written. Minutes of the Golden.Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 4 Grimes discussed the 1-1 Institutional purpose statement and the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the 1-1 Zoning District. He explained that school district offices would be considered a public use and that there are no conflicts with the Land Use Plan Map. Grimes stated that the District realizes that the Zoning Code text must be changed before they would be allowed to apply for a conditional use permit and that this public hearing is not about a specific use, it is only about changing the Zoning Code text. e Grimes stated that the school district has had meetings with the neighbors. Many of them are opposed because of the increased vehicle trips caused by school offices compared to an elementary school. They are also concerned about future uses of the site if commercial offices were allowed in the 1-1 Zoning District. Another concern are proposed changes to the site including additional parking and possible additions to the building in the future. Grimes stated that Staff understands the neighborhood concerns and agrees that they are important to consider because the neighbors moved into this area with the expectation that there was a school building with a tremendous amount of open space and trees. He stated that it is in the City's best interest to keep the nature area and the look of the building the same. With careful wording of the text and by placing conditions on a conditional use permit they could keep the building looking like a school. Grimes discussed the floor area ratio and stated that the proposed Zoning Code text change would only allow school district offices with a very low floor area ratio similar to a typical elementary school site. - Grimes discussed parking on the site and stated that there are about 100 spaces now and that they need to have approximately 130 spaces. They would have to re-stripe the parking lot and add 15 spaces to meet the requirements. Proof of parking could be used if it was determined that there was not a need for. the required amount of parking needed for normal offices. Grimes referred to Glen VanWormer's, PE of Short-Elliot-Hendrickson Engineering (SEH) report and discussed the traffic generation from a typical elementary school of 400 students versus a 40,000 square foot school district office. He stated that the two traffic counts were very similar at 760 trips per day. He stated that the summary of the report is that the amount of trips would be relatively the same, but the type of traffic and peak hour trips would be different. Groger stated that the wording of the floor ratio troubles him because it seems as though the City is rewriting the Code for this particular applicant and that would not be looking at it objectively. Grimes stated he has the same concerns but that he has talked with the city attorney about this proposal. Staff does not know if this Zoning Code text amendment would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 5 work for other schools and churches, but it is the City's intent to keep the character of the area and the low density the same. Groger asked if these were issues that could be dealt with in a conditional use permit at some point. Grimes stated that they could be, but amending the Zoning Code text would make it more difficult to change the use. Shaffer asked for clarification of floor ratio. Grimes stated that it is the number of square feet of gross floor area per each square foot of land area within a lot or parcel. He explained that it would assure low density and that other changes couldn't be made to the building that would alter the appearance. e Rasmussen asked if a change were made to the Zoning Code to allow commercial offices in the 1-1 Zoning District and then applicant decides not to use this site if they would be able to sub-lease the property to another business. Grimes stated that if the applicant decided to sub-lease the property it would have to be to another school district. Rasmussen asked if the school district couldn't use the property and decided not to sub-lease it if the property could be turned into a residential area. Grimes stated that the property is designated Institutional on the Comprehensive Plan Map and that any other use would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. Eck asked Groger if he thinks that this proposal should be handled strictly as a conditional use permit and that a change to the Zoning Code text would not be required. Groger stated his concern is that changing the text should consider what would be best for Golden Valley as a whole and that this seems to be looking at it specific to one application. Eck asked how he would change it. Groger stated that the floor ratio wouldn't be required and that it could be handled with a conditional use permit. Grimes stated that the School District could double the size of the existing school and still meet the Zoning Code requirements for the 1-1 Zoning District. e Tom Walerius, Business Manager, Robbinsdale School District, stated that Olson School was opened in 1972 and was closed in the 1980's then later reopened for other schools to use. He discussed current school district enrollment and stated that each of the schools in the district are under capacity so it doesn't look like they would be needing more elementary school space. He stated that they have looked at 11 different options besides Olson for the district headquarters and that it is cost prohibitive to remodel their existing building. Walerius addressed the concerns about traffic. He stated that they are estimating about 750 cars per day compared to the neighbors' estimation of 850 cars per day. He referred to Zachary Lane School and stated that their traffic counts are 1740 trips per day but that they are on a busy street and a lot of the students don't walk to school like they would at the other schools. Walerius discussed the parking issues and stated that they would need to add some additional parking but they expect to use interior space and would not take away any space from the play areas. He stated that the size of the building would work and that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 6 the only change they would have to make is the addition of an elevator. He stated that they intend to make the gym and the playground available for use to the City. He discussed the evening use of the site and stated that if would be much less as an office building than as a school and that if they were to have large meetings with a bigger crowd, they would have it some place else. He discussed the weekend use and summer use of the building and stated that Olson School was one of several options but that it is the best option at the lowest cost for the District. Eck asked why the District is not proposing to use the Winnetka elementary school. Walerius stated that it is not a vacant building and the people there would have to be' moved compared to Olson, which is vacant and easily modified. Groger asked if they were intending to use Olson School as their permanent office location. Walerius said that is the intent but that the School Board still needs to decide _ that. Shaffer opened the public hearing. e Jeff Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, stated he has been a resident for 26 years and that this is the first time he has appeared before any government body. He stated he was not representing all of the people who were present, but quite a number of them. He stated that he was not surprised by the traffic report that Grimes discussed, nor does he necessarily disagree with the numbers, but he does disagree about the impact to the neighborhood and thought the study should have included traffic on Douglas and Winnetka. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Groger that this proposed change to the Zoning Code text is specifically for the School District and that it would be a busy business use. Carson stated that the feeling of the people who have signed his petition is that this proposal is not an appropriate use. He stated that the way this proposal came at them is most unfortunate. Carson gave the Planning Commissioners a copy of a report he put together. He referred to the first letter from the District where they said that the use of Olson School would be temporary and that there was never a discussion with the neighbors about full time permanent use of the school. He then referred to a SunPost newspaper article, which stated there would be about 30 administrative people moving to Olson. He referred to Mr. Walerius' comment about not going against the neighborhood wishes and stated that the neighborhood was told one thing, when the District really meant another. He stated that it makes no sense to zone for a particular request and that the City should zone for compatibility and for what is already in the neighborhood. Carson stated that some of the neighbors have told him that the District has said if they can't put their offices at Olson they will turn it into a school for delinquents. He stated that he thinks that statement is a scare tactic and that their neighborhood is nice and quiet and they want to keep it that way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 7 Carson stated that he thinks a dialogue happened between the District and the City and the District fully expected their proposal to move right along on track to get a conditional use permit or to change the Zoning Code text. He stated he challenges the Commission tofind another school in this district that the math the applicant is using would work for. He stated that he doesn't think the City should do what the District is expecting because they misrepresented the proposal and it is not fair to do it that way. Eck referred to the neighbors' petition and stated the primary concerns are traffic and using the site as a busy commercial office. He asked where the traffic concern is coming from if there is no more traffic than there was when it was used as a school. Carson stated that it is impossible to believe that the traffic that they intend right now would be the same as when Olson School was open and that having a business dropped on the site does change the character of the area. e Eck stated he wasn't sure he understood Carson's answer and asked if he was saying that if a school opened there tomorrow and the traffic counts were the same would he still oppose the proposal. Carson stated that there is a different flow and he can't believe the traffic can be equal. Shaffer asked Carson how he felt about the traffic back when the school was used for Adventure Club and language immersion. Carson stated that it has never been a problem that has affected the character of the neighborhood. e Eck referred to Carson's comment about the site being used for busy commercial offices and asked how having 150 workers is different in character from students contained in the same building. Carson stated that students don't go out for lunch and they take the bus. He stated that the District office is a busy place with people coming and going. He stated that it is the idea of an office use and that it is because it is the District who is proposing this that the proposal is being entertained at all. He stated that he couldn't imagine a proposal from another commercial business would be entertained. Hoffman asked when the neighbors originally signed the petition if it was against the use being temporary or permanent. Carson stated that by the time the neighborhood knew, the request was for permanent use. He stated that the School District apparently didn't mean it when they said they wouldn't do this if the neighborhood didn't want it. Paula Beugen, 1784 Maryland Avenue North stated she is supportive of the recommendation to change the Zoning Code text and the future conditional use permit if the text is changed. She stated that the District is being forced to move and any action would be a cost to the District. She questioned at what cost this situation would be rectified. She stated that Olson School has been vacant for a period of time and that it is creating negative conditions such as vandalism. She stated that she thinks the District's use of Olson School would be a positive use of the property and would provide for a cost effective option. More costly options would siphon money from other Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 8 programs. She stated that the character of the neighborhood would remain the same and that even though it would increase traffic, it is not reasonable to keep it closed when it is needed for a valid public purpose. Beugen stated that a conditional use permit could have conditions to make sure neighborhood concerns are addressed. She stated that she was at both of the meetings and that the neighborhood meeting did not have anyone from the District or the City involved and that the meeting the District held did discuss both the temporary and permanent possible use of Olson. She stated that people should look at the overall picture and the community needs and what the other potential uses could be if the school was sold. She stated that she was a school board member when Olson was used for Adventure Club and language immersion and that there was substantial traffic generated with those uses. e Steven Heller, 1571 Kelly Drive stated he appreciated the Planning Commission effort and that it is the neighbors desire to keep the neighborhood as a residential area. He stated he built his home specifically so their kids could go to Olson School. He stated that there have been several different schools in that building and they have not had any problems with buses and that just because the Council can change the zoning doesn't mean they should. He stated that cars don't stop at the stop signs and that they increase the danger but the bus drivers are polite and stop at the stop signs and don't increase the number of accidents. He recommended that the Planning Commission does not recommend approval to the City Council. e Steve Schulz, 7340 Olympia Street stated that the traffic study is flawed and that business people come and go and not all of them would arrive at 8:00 AM and leave at 5:00 PM. He stated that he thinks this process snookered the neighbors and that temporary is different than permanent. He stated that what is legal and advised by the city attorney may not make it right, but 104 people feel strongly about it and that is what is right. Sam Courey, 1551 Pennsylvania Avenue North stated that it breaks his heart to think that Olson School might be turned into an office building because of the effort, blood, sweat and tears he has put into the nature area. He stated that if this were a proposal to drop an office building there it wouldn't have ever been given any consideration. He stated that the neighbors haven't been given the opportunity to engage the City Staff to work on their behalf and that he is very bothered that they are saying the outside appearance would not be altered when they are adding parking spaces. He stated he is drastically against this proposal. Jim Senger, 7105 Green Valley stated that the total constituency of the area has not been represented. He asked who paid for the traffic study and stated that it should have been the School District. He stated that he doesn't think a great deal of merit should be given to the traffic study. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 9 Mary McCarthy, 1760 Kelly Drive stated that this is the second time she has fought the School District because they don't do things fairly. She stated they were misrepresenting what was happening until the last minute so she didn't have time to prepare. She stated that her son nearly got killed when Olson School was used for Adventure Club because people would use driveways to turn around. She stated that it is not a safe situation and that all the traffic blocking Kelly Drive is going to back up on Olympia and Duluth and she is concerned about the safety of the children in the neighborhood. e Larry Dunbar, 1640 Kelly Drive stated that he supports the District's request and that he did an informal traffic survey at Noble School which is almost identical to Olson School and found that with staff, buses and vans, Adventure Club, field trips, school related deliveries, evening activities and special events the total trips per day would be approximately 838 trips per day. He stated that there is no place in the Zoning Code that allows for district offices for a school so it should be surmised that it should be considered a school and that it would be an advantage to the City, restaurants and retail business in the area. Susan Senger, 7105 Green Valley Road stated that the statistics from the school board are not true numbers. She asked why the traffic study wasn't done at 42nd and Winnetka. She stated that the traffic study was not done right and was not comparing apples to apples and that it needs to be redone. Shaffer closed the public hearing. e Pentel stated she was unclear as to why the Zoning Code has to be amended when the Council could decide to allow this use. Grimes stated that he has had lengthy discussions with the city attorney and he is uncomfortable using the other uses category in the 1-1 Zoning District because there are no standards to judge by and it is hard to determine what is reasonably compatible. Hoffman told Mr. Senger that he doesn't know who authorized the traffic study but that he has worked with Glen VanWormer in the past and has found him to be very fair and competent. He stated that he agrees that they should be comparing apples to apples. Pentel referred to a past proposal to put an office building along 1-394 with access through a residential area. She stated that she understands the neighbors concerns because using Olson School as offices is a change in use and nowhere in the Code are district offices mentioned in the Institutional Zoning District. Rasmussen stated that she could support putting a school at this site but not offices. Groger stated there was trouble in the approach to this amendment because it seems to be for this particular proposal and it is not accessible by major streets without going through the residential neighborhood. He stated that having a school in a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 10 neighborhood is a desirable thing and that the City clearly wouldn't want to put .an office there. He stated he could see where this amendment might work, but it is not appropriate for this particular site. Eck stated that there is clearly a traffic issue and he is bothered by the fact that the study didn't include a traffic count of their current District Offices. McAleese stated that he highly doubts that he would vote for a conditional use permit for this proposal. He stated that it is a fundamental change from something that is a school to something that is a commercial use. He stated that he agreed that if it were a different business proposing to use this site it wouldn't be considered. Shaffer asked the Commissioners if any of them feel that a new traffic study should be done. Pentel stated that the real issue is not traffic, it is about the change in use. e Grimes stated that Glen VanWormer is one of the most experienced traffic engineers in the metro area and that his figures are accurate to within 5 to 10%. McAleese stated that he thinks Glen underestimates the number of cars turning left. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request to add "School District Offices" as a Conditional Use to the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning districts. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to revise the telecommunication requirements of the Zoning Code e Olson stated that Staff and various Commissions have been working on this Zoning Code text amendment since last summer and that it has gone through several drafts and changes. He discussed the changes that the Planning Commissioners suggested at their May 13, 2002 meeting and showed them how he incorporated them into this draft. He stated that an exception was added to the residential section to allow temporary towers to be put up in emergency situations. He stated he spoke with public works director, Jeannine Clancy about replacing light poles with 60-foot poles so antennas could be put on them. She didn't think that would be a good idea and they have talked about deleting all references to light poles. Pentel asked if the Planning Commission is suppose to make a recommendation based on this draft because it doesn't seem to be ready to move onto the Council in the format it is in with consultant notes, italics, etc. Olson stated that taking out the consultant notes, italics, etc. is part of the process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 11 Eck asked what it is that the Planning Commission is recommending if parts are going to be taken out or added. Olson stated that those are things the Planning Commission has to consider. Grimes stated that this is essentially the same document that was brought to the Planning Commission in May. Pentel stated she would like to continue this public hearing and not make any recommendation until they have a more final draft to look at. Pentel stated she is still concerned with page 3, sections C and D where it allows towers in Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts. She stated she is concerned that if someone were to request a conditional use permit for a tower that it would be difficult the way it is currently written to say no. She asked why the draft ordinance doesn't say anything about arterials and why a list of the City's parks was attached. Olson stated that the parks listed on the attachment are neighborhood parks and that towers would not be allowed there. e Groger stated he doesn't want to see towers next to residential areas. He stated he would vote against this draft and would like to have more discussion about the telecommunications ordinance. Grimes asked Groger if he is suggesting towers should have a greater setback requirement. Shaffer suggested that maybe the setback requirement could be double the height of the tower or maybe that towers would only be allowed on arterials. Groger stated he is concerned about telecommunications towers being that close to residential areas. Pentel stated that part of the problem is that there is an incentive for the host. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that there are federal laws to make sure cities provide coverage. - Eck stated that he doesn't understand the big deal about aesthetics when no one gives a second thought to the ugly power line poles that have wires going everywhere. Pentel stated that there are concerns about the safety of telecommunication towers. Grimes stated that the federal government has said that cities can't look at that issue and that most of the antennas and/or towers are going to be on the roofs or sides of buildings. Eck asked if the only change made to this draft ordinance was that telecommunication towers could be added in emergency situations. Olson stated he would remove all of the consultant notes, questions and comments. Grimes stated that Groger's and Pentel's concerns about towers near residential areas would also be added to the next draft. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one she closed the public hearing. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 12 McAleese stated that in regard to allowing temporary towers the City should define what "short term" means. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to table the discussion of the telecommunications draft ordinance until their next meeting on June 10, 2002. -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. VI. Other Business A. Open Space and Recreation Commission tour of Golden Valley parks-June 24,2002 Olson told the Planning Commission that they were invited by the Open Space and Recreation Commission to join them on a tour of Golden Valley parks on June 24, 2002. He stated that there is a Planning Commission meeting on June 24 and that if there weren't any agenda items the Commission could decide to cancel that meeting and go on the park tour. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:24.