Loading...
06-09-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 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, 2014. CMair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Boudreau-Landis was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes May 15, 2014, Joint Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission Meeting MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 15, 2014, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Cera abstained from voting. 2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Tennant Company — 701 Lilac Drive North — PU-114 Applicant: Tennant Company Address: 701 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To allow for the consolidation of multiple properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus connections. Commissioner Segelbaum recused himself from this discussion. Zimmerman stated that Tennant is seeking approval of their Final PUD plan which would allow them to consolidate multiple parcels into one development site and establish inter- campus connections. He stated that Tennant has created a master plan for its facility and that this current phase of the plan seeks to create pedestrian and roadway connections within the site. He added that Tennant has no immediate plans to construct new buildings, but they envision a three story, 45,000 square foot, office building in the future. Any future plans would also require City review and an amendment to their PUD. Zimmerman discussed the Fire Department and Public Works Department concerns during the Preliminary PUD process. He stated that Tennant has agreed to implement an approved Fire Access Plan by July 1. Also, prior to Final PUD Plan approval, they will provide a timeline for phased implementation of a Fire Protection Plan, install rain gardens as part of the walkway construction, install an underground stormwater filtration chamber within three years, demolish the vacant building located on Parcel 5 and remove the sanitary sewer up to the main. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 2 Kluchka asked if all of the issues have been addressed or have timeline for when they will be addressed. Zimmerman said yes and added that the intent is to have any outstanding issues finalized by July 1. Waldhauser asked about the height limit for this property. Zimmerman noted that the height limit is 45 feet and that the applicant's future plans indicate a three story building which would not be allowed in this zoning district, however, since this is a PUD the future building proposal will need to come back to the City for a PUD amendment and the height of the building would be considered at that time. Cera questioned the status of the homes that form an island in the middle of this proposal. Zimmerman said he is not sure about the status of the homes. Baker asked if the proposed walkways and stairs would be enclosed. Zimmerman said no, and explained that the proposed sidewalks are not allowed to be built across property lines, which is one of issues leading them to do one master plan for their campus. CJ Fernandez, representing the Applicant, referred to a site plan and discussed the two main sidewalk/stairway connections they are proposing. He explained that Tennant's office addition proposal was put on hold in 2008, but the need for the sidewalk connections is the impetus for applying for a PUD now. He added that they will be doing several other constructions projects as well, per the conditions of approval in the staff reports, including fire lane access, re-striping of some of the parking stalls, new signage, a water main extension, a stormwater treatment system, and a few other projects. However, they will not be able to get them done by the July 1, 2014, deadline they were given and they would like additional time to address these issues. He said Tennant is agreeable to escrowing money for the work. Waldhauser asked if the access points to the buildings will be accessible to all employees. Larry Spears, Tennant Company, said all of their buildings are accessible. Fernandez added that the sidewalks themselves will not be accessible because of the grade and steep slopes. Waldhauser asked Spears if he thinks their employees will walk to each building rather than drive. Spears said that is the intent and expectation. He added that the proposed sidewalks are being added for safety as well, so employees won't have to walk on the street. Baker asked how many parking spaces will be lost as a result of the changes to the fire lane. Fernandez said approximately 35 spaces will be lost. Kluchka asked how that will affect their capacity. Fernandez said they currently have extra spaces, but losing 35 of them will "max them out." Baker said they will have to consider parking when they do the next phase of their development. Fernandez agreed. Cera asked for an update about the single family homes that are surrounded by Tennant's properties. Spears said they don't have any intent to purchase any of the homes. Baker asked if the homes interfere with their "one campus" plans. Spears said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 3 no, the homes have been there for a long time and they are not an issue from their perspective. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said Tennant is metal stamping and dropping metal which echoes through the neighborhood beginning at 7:00 and lasting until 10:00 or midnight every day except on Saturday and Sunday. Zimmerman said he would follow-up regarding the complaint about noise. Kluchka said it is very relevant to the Planning Commission if Tennant is not following the City's noise ordinance. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said Tennant has always been a very respectful company. He said he has heard noise too, but it is no different than a train going by and it is not as distracting as the previous speaker stated. He said their property is clean and looks great and he is supportive of Tennant's request. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera stated that Tennant is not proposing to build anything at this point, they are just consolidating their properties into one parcel which makes sense and he is in favor of the proposal. Baker agreed. Waldhauser asked when this proposal will go to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission for their review. Zimmerman said Tennant has been working closely with the Public Works Department. He stated that their development will be a phased approach and the timing will be worked out. Waldhauser said she wants to make sure the proposal isn't done in small enough phases in order to avoid going to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission and asked if staff will know the timing before this proposal goes to the City Council for review. Zimmerman said yes. Kluchka said he thinks this proposal lines up with what a PUD should be. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs 1. 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. 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. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 4 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions 1. The plans dated April 25, 2014 prepared by LHB submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The implementation of the fire access restriping shall be completed prior to Final PUD Plan approvaL 5. The Applicant shall work with the Fire Department to reach an agreement regarding the timing for implementation of the Fire Protection Plan prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 6. The Applicant shall construct surFace filtration (rain gardens) as part of the walkway construction authorized under the Final PUD Plan. 7. The Applicant shall install a stormwater filtration chamber within three years of the execution date of the Final PUD Plan. 8. The Applicant shall demolish the vacant building located on Parcel 5 and shall remove the sanitary sewer up to the main prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 9. The Applicant shall submit a revised parking plan that meets accessibility requirements with respect to the number and location of handicapped parking spaces to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 10.The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 114" in its title. 11.A11 signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 12.This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes — SU12-15 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Addresses: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing property which would allow for the construction of two new twin homes and one new single family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 5 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes —Z012-19 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone a portion of the existing property from R-1 Single-Family residential to R-2 Moderate Density residential to allow for the construction of two twin homes. The Informal Public Hearing for Items 3 and 4 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the currently vacant lot it into five separate lots. One R-1 Single Family Residential lot would remain and four lots would be rezoned to R-2 Moderate Density Residential to allow for the construction of four twin home units. All of the proposed new lots meet the area requirements of the Zoning Code; however, Lots 2 & 3 would be 116.43 feet wide instead of the required 120 feet. The City is also requiring an additional 5-foot dedication of right-of-way to bring Lindsay Street into compliance so the applicant is requesting an 8.57 foot variance to allow the width to be 111.43 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal as it is compatible with the two existing twin homes directly south across Lindsay Street and it is consistent with the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked if the property line between the two proposed R-2 lots could be moved further north in order to obtain additional lot width. Zimmerman stated that the lot to the north meets the width requirement and there isn't enough overall width to make both lots conform. Cera asked about the hardship for allowing Lot 2 to be smaller than required. Zimmerman stated that hardship doesn't have to be proven; the standard is to consider practical difficulties. Cera questioned the process and asked which action has to happen first, the subdivision or the rezoning. Zimmerman stated that the two can be considered concurrently. Segelbaum asked how many lots could be created if the property remained R-1 Single Family residential. Zimmerman said there could possibly be three single family lots created. He added that the applicant could also have one single family lot and 1 twin home lot. Grimes stated that the City Code requires each unit to have its own sewer and water. Also, in order for each twin home to have a separate tax I.D. number, there needs to be a lot line through the middle of the two units and a covenant agreement in place. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, stated he is proposing to have one single family home and two, two-family homes, but he is willing to be flexible and build two single family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 6 and one two-family home. He stated that if he builds two twin homes there will be a chance for more families to live here. Kluchka asked the applicant if he can sell the size of house he is proposing right next to Highway 100. Zelayaran stated that there is a sound wall and that it is a very convenient and peaceful area. Waldhauser asked about the steep grade of the property. Zelayaran stated that the single family home will be set back further on the property and that the grade of the property isn't going to be a problem. Kluchka asked the applicant if he plans to build the houses and then sell them or to build custom homes, or to use the homes for rental properties. Zelayaran said that the homes will not be luxury homes. Baker asked the applicant if will sell the vacant lots or if he intends to build the houses. Zelayaran said he plans to build the single family home first and see what happens with the market after that. Cera asked the applicant if he had a neighborhood meeting. Zelayaran said no. Segelbaum asked about the price of the proposed homes. Zelayaran said the homes would be $180,000 to $200,000. Segelbaum asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Zelayaran said he has owned the property for ten years. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he hasn't developed the property until now. Zelayaran said the economy was too bad. Kluchka asked the applicant when he wants to start construction. Zelayaran stated he'd like to start construction as soon as he gets approval. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said this property used to be a fire station and an area where kids played. He said the neighborhood is starting to turn over and there are no parks nearby, so he thinks this property would be good for a park, not for homes. He said there is freeway noise and it is going to be loud. He said he understands development, but he is opposed to two sets of twin homes because they become rentals which are not always the best thing. He said he is also concerned about the grade of the lot and having cars backing out onto the frontage road. He said a neighborhood meeting would have been nice and that he would prefer a single family home and one twin home. Ronald Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, asked how the drainage for this proposed development would work because it sits a lot higher than his property and he doesn't want to get flooded out. He said he doesn't have too much against the proposal, but it seems that the property isn't big enough for all that is being proposed, He reiterated that his main concern is the drainage. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said he is opposed to allowing two twin homes and he would rather see two single family homes and one twin home because there are already two twin homes across the street from this property that aren't being Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 7 maintained. Kluchka asked Garant if the existing twin homes on Lindsay are rental properties. Garant said yes. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said Lindsay Street is supposed to be reconstructed in 2016 and questioned if this proposal fits with those plans especially if the corner is straightened out. He stated that cars coming from the west screech around this corner and the lot to the north of this property is owned by MnDOT and doesn't get mowed. David O'Donnell, 1107 Welcome Avenue, said he doesn't like this project. He said he doesn't mind single family homes, but this is creating a neighborhood of rentals and nobody is going to build their dream house next to a highway. He said he is also concerned about the traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka questioned if this is the right place for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that generally, changes in zoning should be done with longer range planning, with Comprehensive Plan updates or when a property can't be developed under its current zoning ctassification. He added that the area surrounding this proposal is mostly R-1. Zimmerman noted that R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are consistent with the low density Comprehensive Plan designation. Cera said he doesn't typically like "spot zoning" or rezoning property for a specific development, but questioned if building three homes in the $400,000 range would sell in this location. He stated that there are also many double bungalows that are owner occupied, not rentals. Kluchka agreed and stated that the City has stronger rental licensing laws than it has in the past. Grimes said he doesn't see this proposal as "spot zoning" because R-1 and R-2 properties are permitted in the low density category in the Comprehensive Plan. Waldhauser asked there have been staff discussions about straightening out Lindsay Street. Zimmerman said not to his knowledge. Baker asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Zimmerman stated that this application pre-dated the City's new neighborhood meeting policy. Kluchka asked about the drainage concerns mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman explained that the City has requirements about not adversely altering drainage during development. He said that a grading plan will be required during the building permit process. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and stated that each lot will be required to have separate stormwater management permits, and that the developer must be sure that existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts. Waldhauser said it is encouraging that the houses are in a more affordable range, but the traffic at the corner concerns her. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be to have the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is just not selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 properties in this neighborhood and that this proposal may be a viable option. Baker said he agrees with Commissioners Waldhauser and Cera that it is important to provide a less expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbor's concerns that these could be rental properties, but the City has no control over that. He added that he would have liked to have seen better communication with the neighborhood. Grimes suggested that a turnaround driveway area be added so cars don't have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how that requirement could be attached to the property if someone builds there in the future. Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be a recommendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variance requests subject to the following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. 1. A Variance regarding lot width is permitted for Lot 2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. A park dedication fee of $1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 5. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 6. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 7. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 5. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel Automobiles (Porsche Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 Applicant: Twin Cities Automotive (Porsche) Address: 9191 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new Porsche building. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD to allow for the construction of a new Porsche building in the existing parking lot located to the west of their Audi building. The proposed new building would be two stories with a footprint of 24,240 square feet. The first floor would be used for showroom space, sales offices, service areas and a car wash. The second Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 9 floor would be for employee facilities and parts storage. He showed renderings of the proposed new building and noted the fa�ade would be similar to the existing Porsche building with silver aluminum panels in front and grey precast panels on the sides and rear. He referred to the parking on the site and explained that there are currently 636 parking spaces. This proposal shows a reduction of 64 spaces for a total of 572 parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing to have 51-67 parking spaces in the "triangular lot" located across the street and up to 30 display spaces located entirely within the 35 foot front yard setback area along Wayzata Blvd. He added that the impervious surface area will increase slightly (69.9% to 74.8%) with this proposed amendment and the lighting levels will exceed the maximum allowed under City Code across the site. Baker asked how far the lighting level is above the City Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that the Code requires lighting levels not to exceed a maximum of 20 footcandles; current levels are as high as 73 footcandles. Under the proposed new lighting plan, the maximum levels would be 56.2, which is lower, but still above the maximum allowed. Nguyen Hoang, Baker and Associates, architect for the project, stated they realized that for a comparable price they could construct a new building instead of the previous proposal (Amendment #2) to remodel the existing Porsche building. He said the fa�ade will be the same as their previous proposal except for the north fa�ade which they are planning on modifying to match the other three sides of the building. He explained that placing the display area in the front setback area along Wayzata Blvd. will allow for better traffic flow and fire access, and will have pervious pavers as requested in their previous proposal. He noted that other dealerships in the area have the same or smaller front yard setback areas, with display cars parked there. He referred to the "triangular" lot across the street and stated that they would like to use that area for employee parking and he would like to have further conversations with staff about adding a crosswalk in this location. He referred to the lighting levels and asked that their property be grandfathered in because their properties are one PUD and it would be difficult to get the lighting level down to 20 footcandles. Segelbaum referred to the lighting in the "triangular" area and asked if the current light poles extend beyond the height of the existing wall. Hoang said they are not planning on modifying the lighting on the "triangular" lot. Segelbaum asked if they are planning on re-doing the lighting on the entire site. Hoang said they want to focus on the west side of the property with this new proposal. He said they are trying to make the lighting consistent on the entire site and they've already reduced the lighting significantly. He said eventually he thinks the site will be re-lit, but he doesn't want this new proposal to look different than the rest of the development. Waldhauser asked Hoang if they are adding new light poles. Hoang said they want to reuse the ones they have. Segelbaum asked about the use of the existing Porsche building. Hoang said it will probably be used as an expanded portion of Audi and Porsche, but it won't be used for sales space. He added that there are strategic reasons they are leaving the existing Porsche building where it is and building a new one. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if the "triangular" parking lot can't be used for employee parking if they will have enough spaces on the other parking lot for employees. Hoang said he thinks the existing parking lot can be reconfigured to keep the employee parking on the main parking lot. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser questioned condition #5 in the staff report regarding the relocation of parking spaces along the front setback area. Zimmerman clarified that the proposal indicates parking spaces and display spaces in the front yard setback, and he is suggesting the parking spaces be relocated out of the front yard setback area. Kluchka asked why staff is proposing that the lighting levels in the new construction area be brought into conformance, but not the rest of the site. Zimmerman said he is suggesting lighting levels on the proposed new portion of the site be brought into conformance as a way to start addressing the issue. Baker agreed that the ambient lighting has got to be brought down, and the issue needs to start being addressed. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that states that the applicant should work on bringing the lighting level down, but he thinks it would look haphazard to force the applicant to bring the lighting level down on just one section of the property. Cera suggested giving the applicant a timeframe in which to bring their lighting levels down. Segelbaum said he is not convinced that the "triangular" lot should not be used for employee parking and he would like that decision to be left up to the applicant. Waldhauser said there is also concern about noise in regard to the use of the "triangular" lot. She said she thinks employees parking there could be more disruptive to the neighbors. Grimes added that he is concerned about the safety of employees crossing the street in that location. MOVED by Baker to approve the applicant's request with all eight staff recommendations as stated in the staff report. Cera suggested the motion be amended to say that condition #6 requires lighting levels within the entire PUD be brought down over a period of five years. Baker said he would be okay with that amended motion. Waldhauser said she is not sure that condition #5 regarding the relocation of the parking spaces within the front setback is possible. Segelbaum agreed, and stated that many other lots in the area allow parking in the front setback area. Waldhauser asked if Baker's motion could be amended to delete condition #5. Baker said he is okay with that amendment. The amended motion was seconded by Cera, and approved unanimously subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 11 Findin s 1. 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. 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. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions 1. The plans prepared by Baker Associates and submitted with the application on May 8, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 2, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated June 3, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Parking in the lot south of Wayzata Boulevard shall be limited to inventory vehicles. Employee parking in this area will not be permitted. 5. The lighting plan shall be revised to bring the lighting levels of the entire site into conformance with the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73) within a period of five years. 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business Baker said he would appreciate and overview of the City's approach to zoning and he would like to have a proactive approach to zoning. He asked how the City plans for a diverse housing stock. Kluchka said he thinks the right time for that discussion is during the Comprehensive Plan update process unless the City Council directs them Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 12 differently. Council Member Snope stated that the City Council has had discussions about starting the Comprehensive Plan updated process sooner. Kluchka reported on the first Community Center Task Force meeting. • Election of Officers and BZA Liaison Segelbaum suggested that the Commissioners rotate turns being the BZA liaison. The Commissioners agreed that the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission would be the official BZA liaison, but that they would rotate going to the BZA meetings. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to continue the current slate of officers for another year (Kluchka as Chair, Cera as Vice Chair, Segelbaum as Secretary). • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 pm. ; % ___ � . � INi��---- Charles D. Segelb um, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant