Loading...
06-24-02 PC Minutes . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 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 June 24, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Shaffer was absent I. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting e MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 10,2002 minutes as submitted. . e . II. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD-65 A) Applicant: TCF National Bank Address: 8224 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN The applicant would like to amend the existing PUD to allow for a bank with a drive-through facility. Purpose: Grimes explained that the applicant is TCF National Bank but that it is part of the Golden Valley Shopping Center PUD. He referred to the site plan for TCF and explained how it relates to the rest of the shopping center. He stated that in 1994 it was determined that part of the parking lot and driveway encroached on MnDot right-of-way for TH55. This was resolved by MnDot turning property over to the Trach shopping center. Grimes stated that the TCF building would be approximately 4,000 square feet in area, access would be off of Golden Valley Drive and there would be no new driveway cuts. He stated that a chief concern was traffic. The City hired Glen Van Wormer, a traffic engineer from SEH to study the traffic issues, the study showed that the traffic generated from the TCF site would be similar to other types of commercial uses. Grimes reviewed the parking regulations and stated that they would have 27 parking spaces, 10 spaces would be for employee parking and 17 spaces would be for customer parking which would be more than adequate. Grimes reviewed the setback requirements and showed the Commissioners a copy of the landscape plan. He stated that the plans show some landscaping on right-of-way . - . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 2 property and that the City Engineer and City Council would have to approve that. Groger pointed out that the southern strip of green space shown on the plans is incorrect and that that is really a driveway. Grimes stated that another issue is that most of the stores in the shopping center are connected to wells and the City may make them go on City water. He stated that he also added as a condition of approval that dumpster enclosures must be constructed for all dumpsters on the Golden Valley Shopping Center property by October 1, 2002. Grimes referred to the original PUD Permit issued in 1995 and read that the amount of signage existing on the site at the date of PUD approval shall be the amount permitted on the site. He stated that TCF would like to add another Pylon sign and a monument sign to the site. He stated that the Building Official, Gary Johnson has recommended limiting TCF's signage to 164 square feet, which is the amount permitted for a building in a commercial zoning district. He showed the Commission a sketch of the monument sign and stated that the pylon sign is still an issue that has to be dealt with. Pentel asked if 164 square feet of signage is for the whole shopping center. Grimes stated no it is just for the TCF area of the site. Rasmussen asked what the monument sign would say. Grimes stated it would say TCF and would also serve as a directional sign. Grimes discussed the landscaping on the site and stated that the City would like the shopping center corner to match the other three corners of the Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road intersection. He stated that Staff would like to open up discussions about landscaping that corner with David Trach, the owner of the property and suggested that landscaping that corner be made a condition of approval as part of this amendment. Pentel asked about pedestrian traffic and how people would get from Golden Valley Road to the shopping center. Grimes stated that the City did make a connection from Wisconsin. Pentel asked what the City could do to make the barriers in that area more aesthetically pleasing. Grimes stated that is outside of this PUD and that he would have to talk to the Director of Public Works to determine if changes could be made. Pentel stated she noticed that the dumpsters are very available for use by the general public and asked if there were any requirements about locking dumpsters for tenants use only. She also asked how high the newly required trash enclosures would be and what they would look like. Grimes stated he would leave those decisions to the Inspections Department because they have requirements regarding dumpsters and enclosures. He stated that he too has noticed the dumpsters at the shopping center are starting to look unsightly. Pentel asked if the City has any say about what time of . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 3 day that garbage could be picked up. Grimes stated they would have to follow City noise ordinances. Hoffman asked why they are dealing with the dumpsters when they don't have anything to do with the TCF proposal. Grimes explained that when a PUD is amended it opens up all of the issues for scrutiny. Eck stated that Grimes' comments have been that the corner landscaping issue would be opened up for discussion, but that might not happen and the City Engineer's memo makes it sound like it will happen. Grimes stated that there has been some confusion over this issue and that the City has stated in the past the it does want the corner landscaping issue to be dealt with in due time. Pentel stated that the Area B task force came up with some creative ideas for the shopping center corner and asked if anything has come of that. Grimes stated no, nothing has been decided. Mike Kraft, Shea Architects, Architect for the project, stated that they want to dramatically clean up the west end of the property and make it look comparable to the rest of the Area B sites. He stated that the lighting store would also be cleaned up as a part of this proposal and that they are adding curb and gutter to the rest of the site. He showed pictures of what the proposed building would look like and discussed the proposed drive up lanes and stated they would like to add picnic tables to the green space to the west. He stated they are intending to enclose their dumpster with the same brick used on the building and that they have agreed to stay within the 164 square foot signage requirements. Pentel asked where the next closest TCF branch is located and if this proposed branch will be full service with vaults. Kraft stated the there was a branch in Robbinsdale. They would be full service but they would not have any vaults. Hoffman asked if TCF's dumpster would be locked. Kraft stated no. Eck asked how many cars would stack in the drive up lanes at busy times. Kraft explained that they plan stacking for six cars but the typical amount is more like two or three and that an extremely busy day could have 1,800 cars per day, but that it is not likely to have that many. .. Pentel asked if TCF would be leasing the property. Kraft stated yes. Pentel asked if this proposal would have to go to the Building Board of Review. Grimes stated he wasn't sure and that it was up to the Inspections Department to decide. Joe Finley, Leonard, Street & Dienard, attorney representing the Trachs, stated that almost all of the businesses have been connected to City water already. He addressed the dumpster issues and stated that they are adding shielded dumpsters but that it . - . e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 4 would be almost impossible to add swinging doors because of the way the building is set up. He referred to Grimes' comment about a PUD amendment opening up the whole PUD for scrutiny and stated that he did not think that was true. He discussed how having to landscape that corner of Winnetka and Golden Valley Road would require them giving up a lot of their land, would change the flow of the shopping center and they would have to tear down a building. He stated he does not want the Planning Commission to add landscaping the corner as a condition of approval for TCF and asked to not require the Trachs to give up their land without going through a condemnation process. He discussed the Dolan case and laws about taking property and stated that whatever is happening with the TCF bank has nothing to do with the shopping center and that the lease with TCF may by killed if landscaping the corner is made a condition of approval. Pentel asked if the TCF building and parking lot would meet zoning requirements without a PUD. Grimes stated they are proposing zero setbacks on two sides so it would not meet zoning requirements. Finley stated that the building was legal when it was originally built and should not be held to current zoning requirements just because the laws have changed. Pentel stated that this area is a centerpiece of Golden Valley and the City has worked hard to bring it into the 21 st Century. Grimes stated that the City has given the shopping center a lot of green space at one end of the site and that is another reason the City wants to talk with the Trachs about the landscaping issues. Finley stated that the land did not have to be given to the City because a PUD Permit is a discretionary permit. Rasmussen asked if the City has discussed condemning the property on the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and Winnetka. Grimes stated that it was discussed in 1995 but that the City did not want to acquire it then. Rasmussen questioned if the City has a right to take his business away over a landscaping issue. She stated she was pleased that TCF is proposing to update the one end of the site and she is hopeful that the whole building could change. Finley stated that giving up the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and Winnetka would also cut access to the site, cause safety issues, change the flow and cause real profit and property loss. Rasmussen asked how a shopping center is updated. Finley stated that it is hard to tell tenants to get out when they have a lease. Eck asked if the trash enclosures would only have three sides and if that meant the open side would face Golden Valley Road. Finley stated they would have three sides but that the openings would face the building. . Pentel opened the public hearing. . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 5 Alex Phoenix, 8116 Golden Valley Road, stated that she wants to work with businesses in the area and doesn't want it to be "us" against "them". She stated that she has not had any issues with the dumpsters but rather the traffic and noise. She stated that she has heard trash compacting at 4:30 AM and has called the police but that it is not happening anymore. She stated she wasn't keen on the potential 1,800 cars per hour but she is sympathetic with TCF. She expressed concern about the T -street where all of the traffic is and stated that it is not a pedestrian friendly area. She also expressed concerned about the safety of people wanting to walk to the pedestrian bridge. She asked the Planning Commission if TCF Bank is already planning to go into this location of if the Planning Commission is deciding if that is viable. She asked what is actually being decided at this meeting. Pentel clarified that the 1,800 cars were potential trips per day, not per hour. Jean Caleneni, 8104 Golden Valley Road, stated that she agreed with Alex Phoenix's comments and stated that a lot of residents are getting together to talk about development in the area. She stated she is mostly concerned about the few opportunities for egress. She stated there would be more and more traffic going by their townhouses and the T -intersection is almost nightmarish. She stated that there is only one route that is walkable and that there needs to be another pedestrian option. Chris Barnes, 8106 Golden Valley Road, stated he liked the development in the area and wants it to be a pedestrian friendly area. He stated he is not sure where the City is at in the approval process and asked about the proposed circulation around the T- intersection. He stated he wasn't sure if there had already been discussions regarding this proposal and that he would like to be involved in future discussions. Phoenix stated that she could not support a pylon sign for TCF because people would be looking right at it from their windows. Brittny McCarthy Barnes, 8106 Golden Valley Road, stated she is curious about where the City is in the process of approving this PUD amendment. She asked if the City Council would be making a decision next week or if it would just be a discussion. She asked if TCF is for sure going to be the tenant or if there is another possible tenant. Pentel explained the process that PUD amendments go through and the Planning Commission's role. She stated that the property is zoned Commercial and that the property owners in that zoning district have certain rights. Groger clarified that this meeting is the first time the Planning Commission had discussed this proposal and that they encourage proponents to have neighborhood meetings. Pentel added that she would encourage residents to talk to the City Council. Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public Works and read the pedestrian circulation report. He stated that the City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 6 so far on improvements and that all of the improvements have been a part of the pedestrian traffic solution. McCarthy Barnes asked if it would be too late to talk the City Council since this proposal would be on their next agenda. Pentel stated that she thinks it is still a good idea to think of creative ways to move pedestrian traffic. She stated that the Council would be acting on this proposal soon, but that there will be continued development in that area. Phoenix asked if there were any reason why the drive up lanes were being proposed on the west side of the site rather than the east because the traffic would flow in a more efficient manner if they were on the east side of the site. Pentel stated that there are already parking spaces on the east. Kraft explained that putting the drive up lanes on the west side allows enough room for the stacking of cars and that if the lanes were on the east side on the building they would be on the passenger side of the vehicles. Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel stated she thinks the sidewalk issues are important. Grimes reminded the Commission that there is a sidewalk that goes in front of the stores. Groger discussed the green space that would be taken on the site for the drive up lanes and the new signage requests. Eck referred to discussion item number six on Grimes' staff report which refers to the acquisition of property by the City at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Winnetka and stated that he doesn't think that any of the Planning Commissioners are legally qualified to comment on the legalities of that issue. Pentel stated that number six from Grimes' memo was taken from condition number three on the City Engineer's memo which states the developer must submit a plan and schedule for the installation of streetscaping in the southwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road and that it must be of similar materials and quality as the city streetscaping in the downtown area. Eck stated that he is not comfortable with the way number six on Grimes' memo is presently worded. Groger stated he is not in favor of this proposal. He stated that it is currently grossly in violation of the City Code and that the only green space is at the west end of the site. He stated that just because the existing parking lot has no green space doesn't mean they should extend the pavement to the west end. He stated that the City has to rely on the traffic engineer but that the traffic will increase and that this proposal is too intense of a use and will further aggravate the existing problems. He stated that the Highway 55 right-of-way area is not supposed to be counted as setback area and that allowing the use of right-of-way for green space is setting a bad precedent. He stated he is against this proposal with or without the streetscaping on the southwest corner. McAleese stated that Grimes' recommendation and the City Engineer's recommendation are saying pretty much the same thing and he is comfortable with the way it is worded. He stated the City needs to do something about the southwest corner . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 7 issue but that it should be left to the attorneys to work it out. He stated that as far as the legalities about being in violation of the PUD ordinance he would rely on the City Attorney's opinion but the proposal is against the PUD concept. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Groger about saving the little bit of green space that is left but that any use of the site would generate about the same amount of traffic so that part of the proposal is not a concern to him. Pentel stated that she thinks a yoga business is not the highest and best use for this site. She stated that if the green space was passive green space or used for drainage she wouldn't support this proposal but if the City has a negotiating tool to help them in getting some improvements done at the shopping center she would support it. She stated that she only wants two pylon signs on this property. She stated that the task force for this area wanted to keep the small businesses in Golden Valley and if by granting this proposal the City can open up discussions for improving the whole area, she is for it. Hoffman stated he agreed with Pentel and that the traffic engineers at SEH have done a good job in the past so he i~ not concerned about the increase in traffic caused by this proposal. Eck stated that he asked Grimes to look at the access to the site and both he and the City Engineer say the accesses are staying the same and that this proposal won't have a big impact on the site. He stated he would be supporting this proposal with item number six in Grimes' memo reworded. Rasmussen stated she has a problem with the City making the property owners give up some of their land and make tenants leave. She stated she is concerned aboutthe signage on the site but not so concerned about the traffic because with any commercial use at that site the traffic would be about the same. She stated she would support this proposal. Pentel stated she would not have a problem with TCF having a small monument sign placed at their discretion but suggested that the wording of condition number five in Grimes' memo be changed, but keeping the total signage for the building limited to 164 square feet. Grimes explained that the 164 square feet recommendation is from the Building Code and applies to any commercial building. He stated that his memo would be reworded before it went to the City Council and asked the Commissioners about continuing negotiations involving future dedication of property at the corner Winnetka and Golden Vally Drive. Rasmussen suggested saying that the Planning Commission thinks that developing the corner is important but how the City and the property owners negotiate it would be up to the attorneys involved. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried to approve the applicant's request to amend the existing PUD to allow for a bank with a drive-through facility. Commissioners Groger and McAleese voted not to approve the proposal. . - . - . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 8 III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 06-02) Applicant: George Wessin Address: Lot 10, Block 1 Heathbrooke located at 1811 Noble Drive; and Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 1104 and part of lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No.330, located at 1807 Noble Drive in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. The applicant would like to build a new home at 1811 Noble Drive. Olson referred to a site plan and showed the location of the properties involved and showed the existing and proposed new property lines. He stated that the applicant is requesting that the property lines be revised in order to build a house at 1811 Noble Drive, which is currently vacant. He stated that the detached garage at 1807 is not completely behind the house and that is the only thing that doesn't meet Zoning Code requirements. He stated because of the garage issue the proposal would need a variance from the subdivision code. Olson discussed the park dedication fees related to this subdivision and stated that the City requires park dedication fees when applicants are creating a new lot to be for sale. Eck stated that the premise for this proposed subdivision seemed flawed because there is nothing stopping the applicant from building a home on the vacant lot as it is now. He stated that Olson's memo says the applicant is requesting this subdivision "so that a new home could be built" is incorrect. Olson agreed that he should have worded his memo differently. Wayne VanderVort, 4525 Belford Drive, Edina, representing the applicant stated that a home could be built at 1811 with the property lines the way they are now, but Mr. Wessin wants there to be a buffer between the two lots. Pentel asked when the house at 1807 was built. Olson stated his research showed that the house was built in 1932. Pentel stated that the garage requirements might have been different then. Pentel opened the public hearing. Erik Meyer, 1815 Noble Drive asked if it was the applicant's intent to build on the lot or to sell it. VanderVort stated it that the lot would probably be sold. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for a minor subdivision to redraw the property line between 1 e07 and 1811 Noble Drive. . - . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 24, 2002 Page 9 -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. V. Other Business No other business was discussed VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.