Loading...
02-13-06 PC Minutes e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 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, February 13, 2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka and Schmidgall. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Hackett and Waldhauser were absent. I. Approval of Minutes November 28, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the first sentence in paragraph 6 on page 4 and stated that the word "due" should be added. Eck referred to the first paragraph on page 6 and stated that it should be written more clearly. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 28, 2005 minutes with the above noted corrections. e II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 65 Amendment #2 - Golden Valley Shopping Center - Final Plan of Development Applicant: Trach Properties, Inc. Address: 505 Winnetka Ave. N. Purpose: To allow the applicant to convert the freestanding building (former bookstore) at the south end of the Golden Valley Shopping Center to additional retail space e Grimes referred to the site plans and reminded the Commission that this is the second time they've looked at this proposal because the PUD Ordinance requires that the preliminary plan and final plan go to both the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Council gave preliminary approval to this proposal on November 15, 2005 with 11 conditions. Since that approval the applicant has revised their plans to reflect the Planning Commission and Council concerns including the addition of a walkway, a turnaround area for one of the parking stalls, adding some additional landscaping along the south edge of the property and adding a connection from the pedestrian bridge to the shopping center parking lot. He explained that there are some issues related to utilities within this site that the Engineering Department and the applicant are working on. He said that another issue was screening the dumpsters on the site. He stated that by June 1, 2006 the applicants will provide screening for the dumpsters that will be made of a cedar fence material. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 2 e Grimes referred to the signage on the site and said that the existing signage will remain and the proposed new building will be viewed the same as any other building in a commercially zoned district. Grimes stated the MnDOT has commented on the access to the site and that staff feels that keeping both accesses is important and that the small median in the middle of the northern most entrance will help guide and direct traffic. Cera referred to Grimes' staff report and noted that there are nine conditions of approval but the minutes from the City Council meeting had 11 conditions of approval. Grimes clarified that he combined a couple of conditions from the Council meeting and that there are now nine conditions. Eck stated that he still feels that the median in the north entrance is a hazard. Keysser asked how tall and long the median would be. Grimes said that it is basically a curb about six inches high that acts as divider for the cars coming in and out of that entrance. He explained that he took the Commissioners concerns back to the traffic engineer and the city engineer and they both still feel that it is appropriate to have that median installed. e Kluchka asked Grimes to explain why it is appropriate to install the median. Grimes explained that it is a congested intersection and anytime the City can reduce potential turning conflicts it's an improvement. He added that if the median doesn't work or causes problems it could be taken out in the future. Schmidgall said that he finds it difficult to see the lane markings at night so he thinks a median might help. Kluchka referred to the site plans and asked if the proposed median would hinder access to Pilgrim Cleaners. He said he thought that people will try to do a u-turn in the driveway and suggested that the City look at a solution that would be similar to the intersection at Douglas and Highway 55 where there are vertical stripes on the road which make it very visible, but not as damaging to people's cars. Grimes said that if the Commissioners feel strongly about the median they can add it as a condition of approval and the City Council can decide if it should be installed. Keysser referred to traffic coming from east going across Winnetka and said that it can be very dangerous. He asked if there is anything that could be done about that. Grimes said that staff has discussed that and that the median on Winnetka is placed as far out as possible already. e Cera asked if speed bumps or stop signs could be installed in the parking lot to calm traffic. Keysser noted that there are already a few speed bumps in the parking lot. Grimes added that staff hasn't recommended speed bumps because it makes maintenance more difficult and generally the City's position has been that traffic control on private property is up to the individual property owner as long as it doesn't cause problems on public streets. e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 3 Eck referred to the dumpsters being stored inside the building and asked how they are removed. Grimes said he thought that they would probably have daily garbage removal and that the garbage trucks could probably back right up to the building and wheel the dumpsters out. Kluchka referred to the outdoor patio area and asked how it would be protected from noise. Grimes explained that it would be virtually impossible to protect it from noise. He added that people really enjoy eating outside regardless of the noise. Kluchka asked if the sidewalk improvement would be a City project or the applicant's. Grimes explained that the sidewalk along Winnetka is the City's so the applicant can cut into it but they will be responsible for repairing it and maintaining it. Kluchka stated that the sidewalks and landscaping to the north are well done and asked if the City has any opportunity to increase the appeal by extending the same style down to this corner. Grimes stated that the Council has not said that there will be any extension of that same landscaping down to this corner. Kluchka said the City needs to be actively considering continuing the aesthetics all the way down to this corner to make it look more like the downtown area. Dave Clark, WCL Associates, representing the applicant, discussed the landscaping that will be done around the proposed new building. He said that the parking lot is very narrow and there is not much room to do streetscaping. He referred to the proposed median in the north entrance and explained that it will help designate the one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. He stated that it is very common to put such an island in large driveways where this is confusion about where the lanes are. He said they don't have strong feeling one way or another about having the median in the entrance, but that is what the City and the City's Traffic Engineer have suggested. Clark discussed some of the landscaping that will be done on the rest of the property. He stated that they will be adding some spruce along the backside of the building and in the patio area that leads to the sidewalk. He explained that one of the reasons that the downtown aesthetic with a pergola wouldn't be appropriate is because the box that controls the traffic lights is on this corner. Clark discussed the dumpsters in the proposed new building and clarified that the garbage truck will make more frequent pick-ups and they will be able to pull up to the building and pick up the dumpsters with the truck's forks. He talked about screening the rest of the dumpsters on the property and explained that they are proposing to make the dumpster area wider so the garbage truck can push the dumpsters further back into dumpster area. Clark showed the Commission several renderings of the proposed new building and talked about the various materials he is proposing to use. Keysser asked Clark if this proposal would be a good forerunne~ to the rest of the shopping mall. Clark said he is hoping this is a starting point for upgrading the rest of the shopping center. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 4 e Kluchka asked Clark if there is a development plan for the rest of the site. Clark said that there is not, because they want to really understand the ramifications from this project. He added that they would be looking at the rest of the site in the future. Kluchka asked about the type of tenants. Clark said they don't have any tenant goals. Keysser opened the public hearing. Judy Reinking, 620 Wesley Commons Drive, said she appreciates that the applicants are upgrading the area. She said that she would not like fast food at this location. She would like something more for the neighborhood, more substantial. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser asked the commissioners if they wanted to address the driveway median issue in their motion. Grimes reiterated that it is a wide driveway with three lanes and a median would help direct traffic. He said staff should probably look at the turnaround area in front of the cleaners again. e Keysser noted that the arrows in the parking lot are hard to see and asked the applicants if they could re-stripe the lot. Eck stated that he is at the shopping center a lot and he is not aware of any problems or accidents in the northern entrance. Grimes said there have been a few accidents. Cera added that he thinks the proposed median in the driveway will probably help, because it will make people slow down. Kluchka asked about the height requirements. Grimes explained that this is a PUD so the requirements are different, but the height limit in the Commercial zoning district is 45 feet. Clark stated that the highest point in their proposed new building is 35 feet high. Kluchka said he thinks this will be a fantastic addition to that corner. He said he would encourage the applicants to push this proposal a little further by making it taller or by making the feature a more of a part of the whole building. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request by Trach Properties, Inc. to allow the applicant to convert the freestanding building (former bookstore) at the south end of the Golden Valley Shopping Center to additional retail space with the following conditions: e 1. The site plans for the expansion of the Golden Valley Shopping Center prepared by WCL Architects and dated 11/23/05 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The final landscape plan that is part of the site plans shall be approved by the Building Board of Review. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 5 3. The building and elevation plans must be approved by the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Mark Grimes dated February 6, 2006 shall become a part of this approval. 5. All dumpsters on the shopping center property shall be screened from view from Golden Valley Road. Dumpster enclosures shall be utilized and dumpsters placed within the enclosures. All dumpster and recycling materials will be kept inside the 550 Winnetka Ave. N. building. 6. Dumpster and recycling container enclosures shall be constructed for the existing westernmost buildings on the Golden Valley Shopping center campus. They shall be constructed no later than June 1, 2006. They shall be constructed of cedar fence material sufficient in height to screen the dumpster areas. Gates will be provided only if the trash containers are visible from Golden Valley Rd. The Director of Inspections shall approve the plans for the enclosures prior to construction. All dumpster and recycling containers shall be kept within the enclosures at all times. 7. The overall parking for the shopping center campus is reduced from 401 (as approved in the original PUD No. 65) to 387. 8. The total signage for the renovated 550 Winnetka Ave. N. building (including signage on the pylon sign) shall be limited to the amount permitted in a Commercial Zoning District. The amount of signage for the remainder of the buildings within the shopping center shall remain "as is" as per the existing PUD permit. 9. The recommendations of the Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in his memos to Mark Grimes dated October 16,2005 and January 20,2006 shall become a part of this approval. --Short Recess-- III. Discussion of Proposed Off-Street Parking Ordinance IV. Discussion of Revisions to the Multiple Dwelling and R-2 Zoning Districts V. Discussion of Increasing Permitted Square Footage for Accessory Structures, R-1 Zoning District VI. Discussion of Allowing Accessory Structures in the Business and Professional Offices, Industrial, Light Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts Grimes stated that he brought the above ordinance changes to the Planning Commission one more time before they have the public hearing. Schmidgall stated that he likes all of the proposed ordinances except for the ones that allow accessory structures for smoking. e Grimes stated that the accessory structure ordinance isn't completely for smoking it is also to allow for storage because right now, no accessory structures are allowed in the e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 6 Business and Professional Offices, Industrial, Light Industrial or Commercial zoning districts. Cera suggested that the smoking ordinance could address the issue of smoking in accessory structures. Keysser said he was fine with the proposed ordinances. Grimes said he would bring the ordinances to the next Planning Commission meeting for their public hearings. VII. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. VIII. Other Business Keysser referred to the Planning Commission annual report he wrote and asked the Commissioners to get back to him with any changes or comments by February 17. Grimes referred to the National Planning Conference and explained that there is money in the budget for the Planning Commission to go to the State Planning Conference and that if the Commissioners would like to use that money to attend the National Conference instead that would be fine. Grimes invited the Commissioners to the next Council/Manager meeting where they will be discussing the traffic ramifications and amending the Comprehensive Plan for the Olympic Printing development. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.