Loading...
08-12-02 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12,2002 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 August 12, 2002. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were 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. Absent were Chair Pentel and Commissioner Hoffman I. Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting e MOVED by Groger, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 22,2002 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD-96) Applicant: Central Bank Address: 925, 955 and 957 Winnetka Avenue, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to demolish the existing buildings to allow for a bank with a drive-through facility, as well as leasable office space. e Grimes stated that the applicants are requesting to remove the buildings located at 925, 955 and 957 Winnetka Avenue and construct a two-story office building. He stated that the property is currently zoned Light Industrial which does not permit banks as a permitted or conditional use. He explained that both the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map would have to be amended to Industrial and that the City Council would accept an application to amend both maps at the same meeting the General Plan of Development for the PUD is approved. Grimes discussed the site plan and stated that the entire site is 88,375 square feet. He explained that the reason this proposal is a PUD is because it qualifies as one in the Valley Square Redevelopment Area. Grimes stated that the applicant is proposing to have four drive-thru lanes and one A TM lane and that all access to the site would be from one driveway on Lewis Road. Grimes discussed the setback requirements and stated that this proposal is not meeting the setback requirement of 35 feet on 10th Street and they are not meeting the setback requirement of 20 feet on Lewis Road. All of the other setback requirements are being met. He stated that Central Bank plans to mitigate the 10th Street variance by Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 2 proposing a three to four foot high berm along 10th Street to help screen cars at the drive-thru lanes. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals did approve a variance for this site to allow for the parking lot and two existing buildings to be expanded to within ten feet of Lewis Road. Grimes discussed the sidewalk plan and stated that the applicant is proposing to landscape a gateway to tie into the Golden Valley streetscape design along Winnetka Avenue. He discussed the parking requirements and stated that they are proposing 68 parking spaces and that 72 spaces is the required amount. He stated that staff believes that 68 spaces are adequate because much of the business will be done from the drive-thru lanes. e Grimes stated that buildings or structures couldn't cover more than 50% of a lot and that this proposal only covers 10.3% of lot. He said that there would be more "hard surface" on the site than what currently exists, but that Central Bank would be putting in a ponding area to help reduce the negative effect on the environment. Grimes stated that he would like to add another condition of approval that states the rezoning of the property has to go to the City Council along with the General Plan of Development. Eck stated he didn't have any concerns with the setback along Lewis Road but that it seemed to him there would be a way the applicant could meet the setback requirement along 10th Street. Groger stated that he has heard there are plans regarding changing some areas on the north side of the creek to Residential. Grimes stated he hadn't heard that and the City is trying to enhance that area. e Ted Redmond, Engineer for the project from BKV Group, 222 N. 2nd Street, Minneapolis stated that if the new proposed building were to meet the 35-foot setback requirement along 10th Street it would affect the size of the pond and would have grading issues. Eck stated another option would be to make the building smaller. Barry Morgan, applicant's representative from Master Civil & Construction Engineering, 2104 Fourth Ave. S., Minneapolis stated that there is a 50-foot setback from the top of the bank of Bassett Creek so they are constrained if they reduce that setback and it won't change the size of the pond. Eck asked if the pond would not meet the watershed requirements if the building were moved ten feet to the south. Morgan said that is correct and clarified that they don't have ten feet to work with in the pond area. Shaffer stated that he is concerned about traffic backing up on Lewis and then on to 10th Street. He stated that the stacking of cars does not work exactly as it is shown on the plan. He added that if all of the drive-thru lanes were open it wouldn't be a problem, but if only a couple of lanes were open there would be no room for stacking. Morgan Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 3 explained that Central Bank is a small bank and based on their anticipated growth this site is triple the size they would need. Shaffer suggested having two entrances to the site or a better location for the proposed entrance shown on the plans. Redmond stated that if another entrance were to be added they would lose some parking spaces. Morgan stated that they could look at relocating the proposed entrance but it would affect the flow of the drive-thru lanes. Grimes stated that the city engineer has looked at the plans submitted and does not see any problems with the proposed location of the one entrance. Grimes suggested that before this proposal goes on to the General Plan stage that Traffic Engineer, Glen Van wormer look at the driveway entrance as proposed or the possibility of having two entrances. - Groger stated that he counted 70 parking spaces on the plans submitted and asked the applicant if they anticipate that there would be that much of a need. Redmond stated that they were striving to meet the City's parking requirements and that they need to make sure that other tenants in the building have enough parking spaces. Groger asked if the bank would have any public meeting rooms. Redmond stated no, they would only have internal meeting rooms. Rasmussen asked about the elevations of the building and the gateway landscaping. Redmond stated the building would be at the same elevation and the gateway would be lower and would have signage on it. Grimes explained that in terms of signage applicants are told that they need to follow the requirements for the size of their building. e Shaffer opened the public hearing. Steve Rogers, 8109 Lewis Road, Anchor Tool & Plastics stated that they have been a tenant at there current location for 30 years. He stated that they have up to eight semi- trucks per day coming to their location and with the traffic the bank may generate it could be a potential safety issue. He asked if anyone had done any traffic studies on Lewis Road. He stated that by the applicant not meeting the setback requirements they would lose some maneuvering space and that they don't want the liability. He explained that he is not against the proposal, he just wanted to make sure that his concerns were addressed. Shaffer closed the public hearing. Rasmussen asked if there is on-street parking in that area. Grimes stated he believes there is parking allow on one side or both sides of the streets. He stated that the City could change the signs to no on street parking. He explained that the City has learned from other bank proposals that there is a slow letting out of cars for the drive-thru lanes Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2Q02 Page 4 and that they don't all come out of the driveway at the same time. He added that there could potentially be traffic conflicts, similar to the concerns discussed previously, anywhere in the City. Shaffer stated that he is not so much concerned about parking but the entrance location. McAleese stated that Shaffer has a point, but that most cars would be turning right to get to Winnetka Avenue. Grimes stated he would have Glen Van Wormer and City Engineer Jeff Oliver take a look at how the entrance could be moved or if another one could be added. Eck stated he was concerned about being pressed to give up setback area. Rasmussen stated it would be hard for the applicant to do anything else and that she is in favor of the proposal. e Groger stated that he is usually concerned about setback areas but the bermbeing added along Lewis Road in this proposal will help mitigate the landscaping being lost. He stated his preference would be to keep one driveway because Lewis Road is not that heavily traveled. He stated he also is in favor of recommending approval of this proposal. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the applicant's request to demolish the existing buildings at 925, 955 and 957 Winnetka Avenue to allow for the construction of a bank facility with 5 drive-thru lanes, and leased office space. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and dated 7/30/02. e 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated 7/24/02. 3. The Building Board of Review, as part of the building permit process, must approve the landscape plan. 4. The site plan and preliminary elevation plans prepared by BKV Group for the Central Bank (undated) shall become a part of this approval. 5. The preliminary plat and preliminary grading plan prepared by Master Civil Construction Engineering and dated 7/19/02 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The approval is subject any other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. 7. A traffic study by SEH Traffic Engineer, Glen Van Wormer, shall be submitted and become a part of this approval. Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 5 8. The Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan map shall be amended to Industrial before the General Plan of Development is approved. III. 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. He referred to the new telecommunication ordinance and stated that Verizon Wireless had requested that the words "switch station" be added to the definition section and that other than that change, the telecommunication ordinance is the same version that the _ Planning Commission has reviewed and discussed in the past. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to delete the Open Development zoning district from the Zoning Code. Olson stated that there are no properties in the City zoned Open Development. He explained that this zoning district was once used as a holding district for undeveloped land and that the Open Development zoning district is now obsolete. - McAleese referred to page 3 (Section 11.30, Subd. 7(B)(1)) of Olson's memo and asked if the setbacks in the Business and Professional Office zoning district could be reworded to be the same as the Commercial zoning district has been rewritten. Grimes stated he agreed that the wording should be the same in both the Commercial and the Business and Professional Offices zoning districts. Olson stated he would make the change as requested. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one he closed the public hearing. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve The City's request to delete the Open Development zoning district from the Zoning Code. Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 6 V. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment, Property Rezonings, and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would first like to delete the Radio and Television zoning district from the Zoning Code. Then secondly, the City would like to rezone 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North to Commercial, change the underlying zoning for the western portion of P.U.D. 93 to Light Industrial, and rezone P.I.D. 19-029-24-13-0016 to Industrial. Finally, the City is requesting that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map be changed for 2510 Mendelssohn from Light Industrial to Commercial and for 917 North Lilac Drive from Industrial to Light Industrial. e Olson stated that the Radio and Television zoning district's purpose was to have a district for towers. He stated that staff would like to regulate towers in all of the zoning districts. He discussed the three properties affected by this proposed change. McAleese asked if it is actually necessary to delete the Radio and Television zoning district and if the properties that are zoned that way could be grandfathered in. Olson stated that the City Attorney has recommended that the three properties in question be rezoned and that the district be deleted so future applicants wouldn't be able request a rezoning to the Radio and Television zoning district. McAleese referred to Subdivision 3 of the Radio and Television zoning district and stated that the part about any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential, two family residential, and multiple dwelling sub-districts should be changed from requiring a 2/3rd majority affirmative vote of all members of the Council to the "majority" of all members of the Council. Grimes agreed with McAleese and stated that it would be corrected. e Rasmussen asked if other cities have a Radio and Television zoning district. Olson stated that he didn't know of any other cities that used a Radio and Television zoning district and that most cities have a Telecommunication Ordinance. Shaffer asked if the three properties had to be rezoned before the Planning Commission could vote on deleting the Radio and Television zoning district. Olson stated that was correct. Olson referred to the 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North property and stated that the City would like to rezone this property from the Radio & Television zoning district to the Commercial zoning district. He stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map would also need to be changed from Light Industrial to Commercial for this property. Olson explained that under the new Telecommunication Ordinance, the tower on this property, which is 120 feet in height, could only be built in the Commercial zoning Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 Page 7 district with a Conditional Use Permit. He further stated that the tower on this site would only be required to receive a Conditional Use Permit if the applicant were to propose to build a higher tower on the site. Groger asked if a tower could be rebuilt to the same height if it were damaged. Olson stated that according to the City Attorney they could be rebuilt without a Conditional Use Permit. McAleese stated that the rezoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map requests could be considered in one hearing. e Tony Dorland, Moss & Barnett, representing Verizon Wireless stated that his main concern is keeping the switch station located on this property, He stated that the Telecommunication Ordinance being discussed at this meeting does not include the words "switch station". He suggested adding language regarding switch stations to Subdivision 5(E)(6), which is the Commercial zoning district. Shaffer asked if switch stations could be added to the definition section. McAleese asked if there were any zoning districts that wouldn't allow switch stations. Grimes stated that the term switch station should not be used with language involving towers, because a switch station and tower could be two separate things, and don't necessarily always go together. Rasmussen stated that she thinks the City should be amenable to adding switch stations to the Telecommunication Ordinance because Verizon is doing business on the property already. e Shaffer opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one he closed the public hearing. Olson next discussed the property with a P.I.D. number of 19-029-24-13-0016, which is located north of Room and Board. He stated that staff is proposing to rezone the property to Industrial like everything else in that area. He stated that this proposal does not call for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map. He discussed the setback requirements for the Industrial zoning district and stated that the requirements would be the same as in the Radio and Television zoning district. However, there are no height restrictions currently in the Radio and Television zoning district and the owner would need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit if they proposed to build a higher tower than is currently the case. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to rezone P.I.D. number 19-029-24-13-0016 from the Radio and Television zoning district to the Industrial zoning district. Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2002 Page 8 Olson referred to the property at 917 North Lilac Drive and stated that staff is not proposing to change the P.U.D. zoning, just the underlying zoning of the western portion of the property from Radio and Television to Light Industrial. He stated that there would also need to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map changing it from Industrial to Light Industrial. Olson added that the City Attorney has stated that the P.U.D. Permit granted for this property would remain in effect even if the underlying zoning for the western portion of this property were changed to Light Industrial. Groger asked if the underlying zoning could be changed to Business and Professional to match the eastern portion of the P.U.D. Olson said Light Industrial was more in keeping with other properties west of this site. e Rasmussen asked if the owners of the property could ever stop what they are currently doing and do something light industrial instead. Olson stated that they would have to amend the P.U.D Permit and that they can't just change what is there without having public hearings or approvals. McAleese asked if the owner of the property would have to go through the P.U.D. amendment process if they wanted to double the height of their towers. Olson stated that was correct. Grimes added that the only access to the western portion of this property is an easement and there is no access to a public street so the idea that someone would want to build something else on this property is minimal. Neal Blanchett, Larkin, Daly, Hoffman, representing KQRS stated that his main concern is keeping the flexibility they have now. He stated that most of his concerns have been addressed and that they are not driving this change, the City is. He stated that they are not planning anything for that portion of the property, but they would like it to be zoned Light Industrial versus Business and Professional Office because there is a higher tower height limit and more closely matches what currently exists on the property. e Shaffer opened the public hearing. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street stated he is concerned that if the underlying zoning is changed to Light Industrial someone could fill in the marsh area and develop the land. Shaffer stated that he would guess that it would be virtually impossible to build anything on the western portion of the property. Justin Ronning, 5645 Lindsay Street stated that any proposed amendment would be difficult for the City to turn down if it fit into the Light Industrial zoning district. He stated that because the property is a wetland he would like to explore other zoning districts for this property. He added that he doesn't think that the property being a wetland would stop any future development and that he is opposed to the underlying zoning being changed to Light Industrial. Hearing and seeing no one, Shaffer closed the public hearing. Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2002 Page 9 MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to change the underlying zoning for the western portion of P.U.D. 93 from Radio and Television to Light Industrial and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map be changed for 917 North Lilac Drive from Industrial to Light Industrial. The draft Telecommunication Ordinance was discussed again. Olson referred to his staff report and discussed item number three regarding the setback requirements from residential properties. He stated that he had done some more research on the possibility of monopoles collapsing and that it is his opinion that it would not happen. e Groger stated that he doesn't think that towers, 50 feet from residential areas, is good planning but that he is okay with looking at each proposal individually. Olson explained that if the towers were required to have a setback of 100 feet away from residential areas it might force a tower to go into a place where the City doesn't want it. Shaffer added that there has to be some flexibility to keep towers from ending up in odd places and the Conditional Use Permit process would allow the City to have some control. McAleese stated that he has seen other cities ordinances where they set a specific amount of setback area but they also have a preference of the minimum setback they would allow in residential areas. Olson suggested expand,ing Subdivision 4(C) of the Telecommunication Ordinance. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one he closed the public hearing. e Olson stated it would make sense to put language about switch stations in more than just the Commercial zoning district. McAleese suggested adding the switch station language to the Commercial, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts. Grimes stated that those would be good districts to allow switch stations in because they wouldn't have to go through the variance process. Olson referred to page 4, item 01 of the Telecommunication ordinance and discussed the language written about telecommunication facilities. Dorland stated that he doesn't like words "facility station" because it changes it from a permitted use to a conditional use" McAleese stated he would prefer to table the Telecommunication Ordinance and have staff make the changes that have been suggested. Shaffer clarified that the following items were being tabled: The rezoning of 2510 Mendelssohn, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment for 2510 Mendelssohn, the request to repeal the Radio and Television zoning district and the Telecommunication Ordinance. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to table the items listed above. -- Short Recess -- Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2002 Page 10 VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. VII. Other Business A. Discussion of Draft Sign Code (Section 4.20 of the City Code) Grimes told the Planning Commission that this draft Sign Code was referred to them by the City Council for their comments, but it is not part of the Zoning Code. e Shaffer asked why the Sign Code states that monument signs have to be architecturally designed. He added that there are several other professional people who design signs. Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection Services stated that "architecturally designed" does refer to other professional sign designers. McAleese stated that it appeared that political signs weren't covered in the new Sign Code. Kuhnly stated that staff has gone to seminars where it has been suggested not to put any language about political signs in sign codes and that is why they were left out of the new Sign Code. Shaffer referred to page four, Subdivision 4(C) and asked if prohibiting signs on rooftops is just referring to billboards. He also questioned the same subdivision which states that tops of signs shall not extend above the roof, or parapet wall level, whichever is higher. He stated that in his experience signs could sometimes look better if they do extend above the roof or parapet. e McAleese asked if any variances to the Sign Code would be allowed. Olson explained that is why staff purposely left the Sign Code out of the Zoning Code so that signs won't be open to any variances. Shaffer asked why signs and murals are not allowed directly on buildings. Olson stated one reason they are not allowed is because of maintenance. Grimes stated that it is an aesthetics issue and that it is also hard to define what kinds of signs or murals would be okay. McAleese stated that the issue of murals needs greater discussion. Shaffer stated that he thinks some things in this new Sign Code are too strict and too limiting. Grimes asked what the hardship would be for granting a sign variance and stated staff tries to make the Code specific so the City can answer yes or no to proposals. Rasmussen added that she thinks signs should still have to follow the square footage requirements. Golden Valley Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2002 Page 11 Groger asked if billboards were addressed in this version of the Sign Code. Kuhnly stated that buildings could have a billboard on their property but it must relate to the business in the building. Groger referred to Subdivision 5(2) and stated that the words "real estates" should read "real estate". Shaffer referred to Subdivision 8 H(1) and asked why signs applied to a building have to be placed to allow a space between the end of the sign and the edge of a building. He stated that the way this Code is written doesn't allow for any leeway and that he would like it to. Groger stated that if a sign were to be placed off the edge of a building it could get into setback issues. - Groger referred to Subdivision 8(1) and asked if window signs should be clarified as interior and exterior windows. Kuhnly stated that the City Council raised the same issues regarding limitation of the size of window signs. Rasmussen asked Kuhnly what he thought about window signs. Kuhnly stated that it becomes an enforcement issue. Shaffer added that he thinks that window signs should occupy no more than 25% of a window. The Commission discussed various percentages allowed for window signs. Groger referred to page 7 of the draft Sign Code and stated that allowing signs to be 6 feet in height in the Residential zoning district seems awfully high. He asked about garage sale signs and illegal home occupation advertising signs. Grimes stated that they are in the right of way and not allowed and when inspectors see them they take them down. B. Discussion of Minnesota APA Conference: September 11 - 13, 2002 Olson reminded the Planning Commission that if they wanted to go to the Minnesota APA conference their registration had to be turned in by August 14, 2002 to receive an e early bird discount. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM.