Loading...
06-09-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 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 9, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Keysser was absent. e I. Approval of Minutes - May 12, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Groger referred to the last sentence on page two and stated that the word "they" should be added before the word "would". He referred to the fifth paragraph on page five and stated the word "hear" was misspelled. He referred to the third paragraph on page seven and stated that the word "and" needed to be added after the word "playing". He referred to the last sentence on page nine and stated that the word "of' should be changed to the word "to". e Pentel stated that she would like the original ten conditions listed in Mark Grimes memo dated June 5, 2003 added to the motion in the minutes along with the additional conditions the Commissioners added. She clarified that she wanted the proposed fencing around the auto dealership to be four feet in height, not six feet as written in the minutes and suggested that on controversial items the Planning Commission approve the minutes before the item goes to the City Council. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 12, 2003 minutes with the above noted corrections. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-102) Applicant: Robert H. Sarvey (Elite Auto Sales Inc.) Address: 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to use the building for indoor and outdoor auto sales in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes referred to the site on a location map and explained the applicant's request. He stated that the property is owned by National Camera and that the applicant has put in a contract to lease it for five years. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 2 He explained that in the late 1980's Avis Rental Cars used this property for outdoor sales and lease of cars in a manner very similar to the applicant's proposal. He reminded the Commissioners that in April of 2002, Morrie's Mazda submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to utilize this building for used car sales and that it was unanimously recommended for approval at that time but that Morrie's withdrew the application before it went on to the City Council for approval. He referred to the plans submitted by Elite Auto Sales and noted that they are the same plans Morrie's submitted when they applied for their Conditional Use Permit. Grimes stated that the neighbors south of the site have expressed concern regarding the lighting and the noise. He said that there haven't been issues regarding the lighting level or noise level since they've been required to be turned down after hours. e Grimes stated that there would be approximately 180 cars sold per month and probably 100 trips per day which is considered light. He stated that there is an auto dealer to the west of this site that has operated without any complaints for the last couple of years. Grimes stated that there have been a lot of these types of auto dealerships coming to Golden Valley and that so far they haven't been an issue but the question is how many can there be before there is an issue. Pentel asked how the cars were going to arrive on the site. She said she is concerned about auto transport trucks dropping off the cars without having to violate parking laws and how the City would monitor it. Grimes suggested she ask the applicant how the cars would arrive on the site. Pentel referred to Grimes' memo stating that the applicant could have two flag poles and stated that she noticed that AutoPoint, the car dealership nearby has several poles lashed to their fence. Grimes stated that he has discussed the flags with AutoPoint. e Pentel asked Grimes to read the 14 conditions he recommended in his staff report out loud so that the public would be aware of what they are. She stated that she would also like a condition added about there being no cars parked in setback areas. Grimes read the conditions from his report and added that there should also be no autos displayed on platforms. Eck stated that there was nothing about landscaping mentioned in Grimes' report. Grimes stated that he thought the site is fairly well landscaped and that he doesn't feel any more landscaping is needed. Pentel stated that the pavement in the parking lot is looking a bit rough. Grimes stated that generally the City doesn't get involved unless the whole parking lot is being replaced and that the parking lot would be the owner's responsibility, not the tenants. Robert Sarvey, Applicant, 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, stated that the cars they are proposing to sell would be dropped off at other dealerships and brought to this site one at a time, not by auto transport trucks. He stated that it is his goal to run a top notch business and to blend in with the community. He said that he would be on the site at all times if there were questions and that he has been in the auto business for 18 years. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 3 Shaffer asked the applicant if he thought there would be a problem with adding a condition of approval regarding not allowing auto transport trucks on the site. Sarvey stated there would be no problem with that condition. Sarvey added that he is planning to re-oil and blacktop the parking lot and to sandblast the building. Pentel opened the public hearing. Arlen Turnquist, 433 Ensign Avenue North, stated that he appreciated the fact that the lighting and speaker issues have been addressed. He asked if the Planning Commission could address the issue of telephone bells that dealerships sometimes use and asked what time the lights would be turned down. e Pentel stated that the lights would be turned down to a security level after business hours. Grimes said that something about bells or noise could be put in the permit as well. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for the applicant to use the building located at 9010 Olson Memorial Highway for indoor and outdoor auto sales in the Commercial zoning district with the following amended conditions: 1. The site and building layouts submitted with the CUP application becomes a part of this approval. e 2. There shall be no more than 57 total cars on the site. All cars must be parked in designated parking spaces. There shall be no parking in landscaped areas, setback areas or aisles. At least 6 spaces shall be designated for employees and 10 spaces for customers. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 am to 8 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am to 6 pm Friday and 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 review any plan. The cost of the review would be born by Elite. 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 4 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 or audible devices are to be used at this site. e 11. Two flagpoles for the display of the U.S. and other government flags may be added to the site. 12. Any outside trash containers must be screened with materials similar to that of the building. 13. There shall be no platforms of any type used for the displaying of cars. 14. The dropping off of cars shall not be done using auto transport trucks. 15. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. e -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel attended the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting. She reported that the Conditional Use Permit request by ABC investment to sell used cars at 800 Lilac Drive was approved. Shaffer reported that the 4500 Hampton Place variance appeal was brought back on to the Council agenda on May 20,2003 and was again voted down. IV. Other Business A. Letter from Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson regarding a proposed Text Amendment in the Industrial zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 5 Grimes referred to the letter he received from Gary Gandrud at Faegre & Benson asking if his client, Dennis Doyle, who owns Welsh Companies and works with the corporation Hope for Life could sell some things from his warehouse which is located in the Industrial zoning district. He stated that he did tell Mr. Gandrud that the City Code only allows temporary sales, which is 15 days per year, in the Industrial zoning district. Shaffer said that he doesn't like the idea of retail in the Industrial zoning district other than the temporary 15 days per year already allowed. The other Commissioners agreed. Grimes stated that he would tell Mr. Gandrud that the Planning Commission doesn't think that it is a very good idea. B. Review of changes to Section 11.21 of the City Code (Single-Family) e Grimes referred to the draft Section 11.21 of the City Code and stated that the Council would like to see changes made to this section because the perception is that it is too strict. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 9 and suggested clarifying what "lot coverage" means and if it includes impervious surface or buildings or both. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 10(A) and suggested increased setbacks as the length of side of the building increases. Pentel referred to Subdivision 1 O(A)(1) and stated that she thought the side of the home that faces the street should be considered the front of the home. Shaffer stated that the front of the lot is the narrowest side but that is not defined anywhere. Grimes said that referring to the narrowest side as the front of the lot is often more advantageous to the e homeowner. Groger referred to Subdivision 11 (E) and stated that 1,000 square feet of accessory building space seems awfully large. Grimes stated that 1,000 square feet also allows for garages and sheds. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 11 (G) regarding in-ground swimming pools and stated that this subdivision should apply for above ground pools as well. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 12 regarding Pre-1982 buildings and stated that the word "existing" needed to be added before the word building. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 14 regarding driveway requirements and asked if an existing driveway doesn't meet requirements if it would then need a variance. McAleese suggested moving the driveway section of the Code in to the Pre-1982 Section of the Code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 6 Shaffer referred to Subdivision 16 regarding home occupation requirements and suggested adding something about referring to the definition section for employee information. He stated that he thinks one employee should be allowed. Pentel referred to Subdivision 16 (A)(8) regarding home occupation hours of operations and stated that she thinks allowing a 7 AM starting time would be a better than 9 AM. Pentel referred to Subdivision 16 (B)(9) regarding prohibited home occupations and suggested saying "retail sales" instead of "gift or antique shop". Groger suggested allowing "isolated and occasional sales". e Pentel asked what a Zoning Permit is. Grimes explained that the Building Code changes state that decks less than 30 inches in height no longer require building permits. Therefore, the City won't know where decks are being placed on lots. Requiring a Zoning Permit will help the City stay on top of where decks and sheds are being built. He added that sheds would also require a Zoning Permit. Pentel asked how people would know if they need a Zoning Permit. Shaffer said it would be the same way they know they would need a Building Permit. Rasmussen asked why they would want to do Zoning Permits. Grimes explained that it is to keep decks and sheds out of easements and setback areas. Shaffer added that the goal is to not have to grant so many variances. e Groger stated that he is not sold on these changes. He said it seems like it is about trying to make less work for staff and the BZA. He said that he is concerned about neighbors and how they are potentially affected. Shaffer stated that a lot of the new proposed changes help the neighbors and the characteristics of the neighborhood and that the BZA isn't trying to reduce the number of variances. Groger suggested allowing only front porches to encroach into the front setback area. C. Review of fence regulations Section 4.07 of the City Code (Fences and Screening) Shaffer referred to Subdivision 3(D) regarding types of fencing and suggested that construction fencing be added to this section as well. Eck referred to Subdivision 3(E) regarding the height of fencing and stated that the word "still" should be removed from the first sentence. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 3(H) regarding fence openings and stated that it doesn't address the issue of having gaps in between the fences. Grimes stated that fence plans and pool plans are approved by the building official. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 7 Shaffer referred to Subdivision 3(1) regarding temporary fences and suggested adding something about fences that are up longer than 30 days because of construction time that lasts longer than 30 days. Groger referred to Subdivision 4(A)(1) regarding fence heights and questioned the height of fences for corner lots. Grimes explained that anytime a fence abuts a street it would be limited to four .feet in height. He added that he would clarify this section of the Code. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 4(C)(2) regarding storage in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts and stated that the word "either" should be taken out of the second sentence. e Groger referred to Subdivision 4(C)(3) regarding fence height and stated that an eight foot high fence would look out of place around a whole building and suggested that something about fencing around storage areas and parking being added to this section. D. Review of Comprehensive Plan for higher density housing for Golden Valley. Grimes gave the Planning Commission some demographic and census information and then discussed the city's Housing Policy. He asked the Commissioners to think of locations in the City where higher density or lifestyle housing could potentially be built. e Pentel referred to the re-building of the downtown area of the City and asked if there could be a right turn in and a right turn out access opened up on the south side of Rhode Island and TH 55. She said that that is a major concern of people who live south of TH 55 and that it would help alleviate the situation. Grimes explained that that was a MnDOT issue and that traffic is the major concern of every development no matter where it is. Pentel stated that she thinks of senior citizens who want to get out of their single family homes but can't afford a $300,000 townhome unit and that proposals for affordable units might increase the city's consideration. Grimes stated that allowing more density could do that too. Pentel stated that there are some large lots south of TH 55, and asked how people would get in and out of the area. She said she would be interested in knowing the demographics now on Area B and what the City thought they would be when the project began. Grimes said he thought he could get that information from Rottland. Shaffer stated that it would be prudent to have the Council do a traffic study first of the area south of TH 55. Grimes said he would like to see the Planning Commission come up with some housing study areas. Pentel added that she thinks they shouldn't only look at residential areas. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 8 Rasmussen stated that the problem is that the empty nesters can't afford an expensive condominium. Grimes suggested identifying sorne areas worth studying but going a little faster with the area south of TH 55 first. v. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.