Loading...
10-22-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2D12 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, October 22, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Kisch, Kluchka, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Cera and McCarty were absent. 1. Presentation of 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program—Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director, explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 5-year financing planning instrument used to identify needed capital projects and to delineate the financing and timing of associated projects. Generally, these projects exceed $10,000 in cost and require long-term financing. The CIP also identifies bond issues necessary to fund improvements and each project is brought forth for approval by the City Council. Because of its relationship with the City's Comprehensive Plan the CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Waldhauser referred to the Douglas Drive project and asked Virnig to summarize the major activities in 2014-2015 when the bulk of the activities occur. Virnig referred to page 104 and explained the breakdown of the expenditures for pouglas Drive improvements. Waldhauser asked if there are any items in the CIP that are a deviation or change from recent trends and expenses. Virnig explained that 2013 market values are down 2.5% and the City is trying to improve its infrastructure, but also lessen the impact on the taxpayers by reducing the number of streets being reconstructed. Segelbaum asked about the 2012-2Q13 reduction in the buildings and parks sections. Virnig referred to page 96 of the CIP that explains project itemization. She discussed the transfers made in 2012 from the general fund to the park improvement fund. Waldhauser asked if the redevelopment area near Boone and Highway 55 is reflected in this CIP. Virnig stated that those improvements will be reflected in the CIP next year. Schmidgall referred to the cable equipment replacement section of the CIP and questioned the use of those funds. Virnig explained that the funds in the CIP along with franchise fees are used to replace cable equipment in the control room as needed. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 2 2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 600 Boone Avenue North — Boone Avenue Convenience Center— PU-110 — Final Plan Applicant: Linn Investment Properties, LLC Address: 600 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for the construction of a retail/service facility on the east side of the site. Hogeboom stated that this public hearing is for the Final PUD application proposal for the Boone Avenue Convenience Center. He reminded the Planning Commission that they reviewed the Preliminary PUD proposal on August 27, 2012 and that the City Council approved it on September 19, 2012. He explained that the proposal includes retaining and remodeling the existing gas station and constructing a new retail building east of the existing building. He stated that the property is guided for long-term retail and service uses in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Commercial so no changes to zoning or to the Comprehensive Plan would be required for this proposal. He explained that this proposal is being considered as a PUD because both buildings would function as one cohesive development with internal traffic circulation, shared parking, pedestrian connections and facade treatments. He referred to his staff repart and explained that in order for this development to be approved as a PUD the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this Final Plan proposal based on the findings above and the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 3 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated July 30, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated October 16, 2012, shall become a part of this approvaL 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 5. The design specifications, including building location, fa�ade treatment and materials, and site design, as submitted by the applicant, shall become part of this approval. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Waldhauser asked if the design specifications included in the agenda packet have been approved by the City Council. Hogeboom said yes, and added that the Planning Commission can provide recommendations regarding the design to the City Council. Segelbaum referred to the applicant's narrative and noted there was additional parking and landscape information included in the narrative. He asked if staff met with the applicant regarding this additional information and if there were changes made to the parking and landscaping proposals since the preliminary PUD stage. Hogeboom explained that the parking requirements are based on use, not the zoning district, so they may change depending on what type of businesses are located in the proposed new building. He added that staff has reviewed the landscaping plan submitted and it does meet all of the requirements. Segelbaum asked about the process if the applicant decides he needs additional parking spaces. Hogeboom said the PUD would have to be amended if additional parking spaces are needed. Grimes added that the proposed parking plan does meet the requirements for general retail space and that the parking spaces for the gas station could also be used by the retail building customers. Stephen Linn, CEO Linn Companies, Applicant, referred to the number of parking spaces and said he feels that the numbers are "right on" and would meet the standards of 90% of the cities in the Twin Cities metro area. Kisch said he wants to make sure consideration is given to handicap parking spaces as well. Linn said the amount handicap parking spaces will be considered during the City's code review process. Kisch asked why the amount of impervious surface increased .2% over what was shown on the preliminary plans. Waldhauser noted there is a concrete patio the south side of the proposed new building. Linn stated that he doesn't think there have been any changes since his last submittaL Waldhauser referred to the site plan and noted that the pedestrian access seems awkward because the proposed sidewalk runs between the two buildings and not to the building entrances. Kisch added that an extended sidewalk to the proposed retail building and possibly a crosswalk or striped area would create a more pedestrian friendly site. Linn said he is open to whatever direction the City gives him. Grimes clarified that the suggestion Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 4 the Planning Commission is making would be to have separate sidewalks to the gas station and the retail building with a striped area across the parking lot, which would bring people to the entrance of the buildings. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission's suggestion regarding the sidewalks should be made a condition of their approval. Waldhauser said she thinks it should be a recommendation, not a condition. Kisch agreed and added that he would like the applicant to explore their options before this plan moves on to the City Council. Waldhauser stated that she thinks there needs to be flexibility with the amount of parking because there is no parking allowed around the site. Kluchka asked if the locations of the trash enclosures could be consolidated. Linn stated that there are two separate parcels so there really needs to be two separate trash enclosure areas that aren't too far away for the tenants of either building. Segelbaum asked the applicant what he meant in the narrative when he stated that there will be additional parking. Linn stated that the amount of parking on the gas station parcel is increasing from what is there today. Kluchka asked about the materials being proposed for the trash enclosures. Linn said the trash enclosures will be made from a block that matches the buildings. Grimes noted that the City requires trash enclosures to be made of the same type of materials as the principal structure. Kluchka asked if the trash enclosure for the proposed retail building could be moved to the south corner so it is not right by the sidewalk. Linn stated that the trash enclosure can't be built in that location because it can't be located in the flood area for the creek. Waldhauser referred to the landscaping plan and asked if there is any opportunity to put in more trees and shrubs and less daylilies. Linn explained that additional landscaping will be done on the gas station site. He stated that there are major Metropolitan Council utilities running through this area so they really can't plant more trees but they can have more shrubs and mulched beds. Waldhauser asked about the type of landscaping on Boone Avenue. Linn said those areas are currently landscaped and aren't being disturbed. Kisch stated that given 14 trees are being removed and only four are being added he thinks more could be done. He suggested more trees be put in along Golden Valley Road and possibly along the east side of the car wash where there is a sod area. Linn explained that the sign is going to be located in the area to the east of the car wash but he could put in additional landscaping along Golden Valley Road if it doesn't interfere with sightlines. He added that he also needs to have room for snow storage. Kluchka said he would like the property to feel more open and more like a community space. He said benches similar to the ones at Golden Valley Road and Winnetka would help give the site a community-space feel. Linn noted that there will be a patio on the south end of the retail building. Kluchka said that patio would have a fence around it. He reiterated that having table and benchs in this space would improve the community feel Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 5 and make this property more about Golden Valley and not just about cars coming in and spending money. He asked if there will be a bike rack on the site. Linn said yes and showed on the plans where it will be located. Kluchka said he wants to encourage pedestrians to use this site so he would like to make a recommendation that benches be added to the site. Linn said he is not sure the site is large enough for benches and tables but it may be possible to add some small benches. Waldhauser suggested putting benches up against the front of the building. Linn stated that sidewalk space in front of buildings is typically used for product space and there also needs to be accessible space and room to walk on the sidewalk. Waldhauser asked if the facades of the proposed new retail building could be broken up visually/architecturally. Linn referred to the elevation drawings and explained that there will be stone and brick columns, a parapet, awnings and decorative light fixtures. All of which will be a considerable enhancement over what is currently on the site. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Schmidgall to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for the Boone Avenue Convenience Center proposal. Kisch said he would like to discuss the Planning Commission recommendations regarding pedestrian access, exploring options for additional landscaping opportunities and the 360- degree design on the facades of the buildings. He said he is comfortable with the proposed design. Kluchka said he thinks it is important that pieces of the Planning Commission discussion regarding benches or public space concepts be considered. He suggested that another conditional of approval be added that includes language requiring the applicant to include "visual interest" to the elevations. Waldhauser suggested glass inserts with murals behind them to add architectural interest. Linn said he can assure the City that he is proposing the nicest convenience around. He said that adding fake windows is not the way to go and won't get the architectural look the Planning Commission wants. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposed building and remodeling are clearly a huge enhancement over what is currently on the site. He added that he likes the language Commission Kisch suggested encouraging the applicant to "explore" additional landscaping opportunities rather than requiring the applicant to add landscaping. Schmidgall asked for clarification on what the Commissioners are suggesting as additional conditions of approval. Hogeboom stated that the first condition is to have the applicant explore improved pedestrian site features, including adding an additional sidewalk, the second condition is to have the applicant explore enhanced landscaping opportunities for the site including benches for public seating and the third condition is to have the applicant consider ways to enhance visual interest to the site, including possible enhancements to building facades. Minutes of the Goiden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 6 After discussion, Kisch seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for PUD-110 - Boone Avenue Convenience Center subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated July 30, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated October 16, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 5. The design specifications, including building location, fa�ade treatment and materials, and site design, as submitted by the applicant, shall become part of this approval. 6. Bicycle parking (bike racks) shall be shown on the Final Plan. 7. The Developer shall explore improved pedestrian site features, including adding an additional sidewalk to the westernmost entrance onto Golden Valley Road, shifting the existing sidewalk to the eastern side of the easternmost entrance to Golden Valley Road, and adding benches and other pedestrian-scale amenities to the site. 8. The Developer shall explore enhanced landscaping opportunities for the site, including adding a tree behind the westernmost trash enclosure and adding shrubbery to the landscape area near the entrance to the car wash facility. 9. The Developer shall consider ways in which to enhance visual interest to the site, including possible enhancements to building facades. 10.This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Findinqs: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 22, 2012 Page 7 --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kisch gave an update on the October 16, 2012 City Council meeting where the Council approved the Preliminary PUD plans for the Tiburon proposal. 4. Other Business Hogeboom reminded the Commission that there will be a joint HRA/Planning Commission workshop on Monday, October 29, 2012. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. �.�J/ (!f ,�,,.. David A. Cera, Secretary