Loading...
03-23-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 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, March 23, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Baker and Johnson were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 9, 2015, Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 2015, and the March 9, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — CenterPoint Energy — 6161 Golden Valley Road — PU-122 Applicant: CenterPoint Energy Address: 6161 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow a new approximately 64,000 square foot operations facility, replacement of an approximately 825 square foot gas regulator building, and related site improvements. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request for a PUD to add an additional principal structure. The proposed new structure is a 64,000 square foot operations facility which includes office, warehause, and small metal shop. The applicant is also proposing to replace a gas regulator building. Goellner stated that Douglas Drive is being reconstructed in 2016-2017 and noted that the placement of the building and setbacks are shown on applicant's plans using the proposed new property lines. She referred to the parking on the site and stated that the City Code requires approximately 80 parking spaces and that the applicant is providing 208 spaces. She stated that the applicant is encouraged to add a sidewalk connecting their office to the proposed sidewalk along Douglas Drive. She referred to the site plan and discussed stormwater management and landscaping. She explained that the current pond on the site will be filled in, and a new pond will be constructed. The applicant is also proposing to remove 65 trees and to plant 132 new trees and has been directed to include shrub and perennial plantings as well. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary PUD plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there are any additional requirements that the applicant is required to meet due to the reconstruction of Douglas Drive. Goellner said no and added that the sidewalk along Douglas Drive will be provided with the reconstruction project. Kluchka asked Goellner to highlight where the sidewalk on Douglas Drive will be located and comment on if it is guaranteed to be built. Goellner referred to the site plan and showed where the proposed sidewalks will be located along Douglas Drive. Kluchka asked if that sidewalk will connect to the sidewalk on Golden Valley Road. Goellner said she believes it will. Waldhauser referred to the proposed number of parking spaces and asked why the additional parking is needed. Goellner said she thinks the number of spaces proposed fits with the number of employees on site. Segelbaum noted that the plans shown in the presentation show the driveways on Douglas Drive in alignment, but they were not aligned on the plans in the agenda packet. Waldhauser clarified that the driveway alignment issue is on Golden Valley Road, not Douglas Drive. Zimmerman added that Tennant currently has two driveways that will be consolidated and re-aligned with the reconstruction of the Douglas Drive/Golden Valley Road intersection. Blum asked if the applicant is regulating the inflow and outflow of gas at this facility. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if the proposed new facility will also be for that purpose or just for office purposes. Blum also asked if there are any environmental or safety considerations for increased capacity in the outflow af gas, or if that has a relationship to where the new facility is located on the property. Goellner said the applicant could help answer those questions. Segelbaum asked if the City has any record of there being any safety incidents at this location. Zimmerman said the Fire Department has had discussions about the appropriate fire suppression system and standards for the tank farm. Ross Hedlund, Frauenshuh Commercial, Representing the Applicant, said they are very excited about this project on an underutilized piece of property on Golden Valley. He said they have representatives in attendance from OPUS, Loucks, and CenterPoint to answer questions. Dave Long, Facilities Project Manager for Gas Operations, CenterPaint Energy, addressed the questions about the parking. He said they will have approximately 70 employees coming from other facilities who all have fleet vehicles. They will arrive in their personal vehicles and then take the fleet vehicles out for the day and come back. He said there will also be a number of other employees at this site. Waldhauser asked if the fleet vehicles are rotating in and out, or if they all arrive and leave at once. Long stated that they will leave the site between 6-8 am and will arrive back between 2:30-4 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 3 Vicki VanDell, Loucks Associates, Representing the Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the sidewalks and stated that they could put in a sidewalk connection from the proposed new building to Douglas Drive and another connection to Golden Valley Road. Kluchka asked about the traffic patterns on the site. VanDell referred to a site plan and explained that the Golden Valley Road entrance is mostly used by office staff. The Douglas Drive entrance is mostly used by operations, warehouse, and research staff. Long added that the Douglas Drive entrance will be used by construction and maintenance trucks and trucks delivering to the warehouse. Dan Young Dixon, OPUS Architects and Engineers, referred to a site plan and noted that the large open area in the center of the site is storage for piping used for installations. Kluchka asked if that open area will be paved. VanDell said it will be paved. Kluchka asked if that area would be screened. Dixon stated that the building will screen the open area, and that there is already a berm and fencing around the site and the tanks. Segelbaum said he would like to hear more about the overall screening for the whole site. He said this is fairly prominent area and screening is very important. VanDell referred to the landscaping plan and showed which trees will be removed for the construction of the new building and expanded parking area. She pointed out the evergreens, berms and deciduous trees on the site that will help provide screening. Waldhauser recommended that the applicant provide building elevations and renderings that describe what people will see on the north and west sides of the property when walking or driving. Dixon referred to the design of the proposed new building and explained that the north side of the building is offices and will have a significant amount of glazing that will wrap around to the west side. The building will then be separated with pre-cast that will have recesses and reveals to break up the massing and will be painted to match with both light and dark colors. Kluchka stated that CenterPoint does a lot of education and suggested they install some kind of signage that describes their energy efficient message since this is a gateway area. Dixon agreed and stated that they are looking at LEED certification for the building as well. Blum asked about the volumes of gas being transferred through the facility currently, and what the volumes will be. Long stated that the peak shaving plant doesn't run all that much, it just runs when it is really cold outside. He added that the usage of the peak shaving plant is weather dependent and won't get used more as a result of this proposal. Kluchka asked what peak shaving means. Long explained that as the weather gets colder, the peak demand goes up, so they shave the peak off by injecting the system with compressed air to maintain the volume and pressure in the system. Blum asked if there will be a change in volume as a result of proposed expansion. Long said to his knowledge it will operate exactly like it has been. Blum asked if there are any new safety considerations as a result of what they are proposing to do on the property. Long said there could be as they continue to work with the Fire Chief. Kluchka asked about the plans for installing bike racks. Dixon said bike racks aren't shown on the plans yet, but they will be included. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 4 Kluchka reiterated that this property is going to become a significant gateway site. He said he is thinking about how this corner becomes a gateway to bikers. He said he would love to see any opportunities with this development and the street reconstruction to say welcome to Golden Valley. Dixon said he understands the gateway opportunity. He stated that the new pond and landscaping will be at the corner in order to highlight the intersection. Segelbaum noted that the south side of the property has bike traffic and he doesn't want the storage tanks to be the first thing people see. VanDell discussed the trees along the south side of the property. Kluchka said he is also interested in how the west elevation can be humanized and how drivers, bikers and pedestrians will be affected. He said he wants to understand how the building isn't going to seem too big when someone is walking past. Cera referred to the stormwater management plan and asked if the applicant is proposing both a storage basin and rain gardens. VanDell said they have a high water table so infiltration is difficult, which is why they decided to do stormwater ponding on this site. However, there could be apportunities for surface infiltration along the west side of the property. Kluchka suggested that if the inside of the building has a visual interest that could also be highlighted. Segelbaum reiterated that the applicant should have elevation plans and renderings ready to the show to the City Council. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Meena Shariff-Dean, 1350 Douglas Drive #106, asked is the existing pond will be removed. Kluchka said they will be removing and replacing the pond. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Zimmerman confirmed that the existing pond will be removed and two new ponds will be added on the north side of the site. Segelbaum asked about the requirements regarding ponds. Zimmerman said there are requirements for landscaping and the details will be reviewed as part of the stormwater review process. Cera asked if the original pond was built or if it is natural. Zimmerman said it was built. Kluchka asked staff to comment on the sidewalk and bike plan in this area. Zimmerman stated that there is a good layout for the vehicle lanes and bike lanes as part of the Douglas Drive reconstruction plans. He stated that he would ask staff from the Engineering division to come to a future Planning Commission meeting and present an updated plan of the Douglas Drive project. Kluchka asked if there are any plans for a wayside area or way finding signs for pedestrians and bikers. Zimmerman stated that there may be areas for bikers and pedestrians included in the final plans for the Douglas Drive reconstruction project but the plans are not yet complete. Kluchka asked about bus access. Zimmerman said he doesn't expect the bus access to change. Segelbaum said he is pleased to see that CenterPoint wants to invest in this site because it is a property in Golden Valley that is only going to become more prominent. He said he is also pleased to see increased landscaping and screening and he is hoping to see more Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 5 concrete information about screening in future elevations and renderings. Cera agreed that this will be a vast improvement over what is there now. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval regarding design review and approval. Segelbaum said the design is usually shown in the different plan views. Kluchka said he wants the Planning Commission to review and approve the design in this case especially because of its proximity to pedestrians, bikers, and drivers. Cera said he would like to know how this proposal compares to the impervious surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the Industrial zoning district doesn't have impervious surface requirements. Cera said it would be nice to know how much impervious surface there will be on the site. Goellner stated that 66.1% of the site will be impervious surface. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval regarding landscaping and screening. Segelbaum agreed and said he wants emphasis placed on screening. Kluchka summarized that the conditions should include: 1) screening as it relates to pedestrians, bikes, and cars; and 2) design review and approval. Segelbaum added that he would like to require that elevations, renderings, and views from the street be submitted. Zimmerman said a condition regarding bike racks should also be added. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Gera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for CenterPoint Energy PUD No. 122, 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. This PUD will allow the applicant to better utilize the site by developing the operations facility on the site. 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. The plan will utilize the perimeter of the site for tree plantings and stormwater management. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. The plan brings more active uses to this large site by providing office and warehouse uses, which are compatible with the current uses on the property. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The proposed uses are permitted in the Industrial zoning district. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Ths PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. With exception of the issues raised by the Fire Chief, the plan generally meets the requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 6 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Loucks Associates, submitted on March 20, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the City Engineer to the Planning Manager, dated March 13, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Chief to the Planning Manager, dated March 20, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. A park dedication fee of $72,540 (2% of the land market value) shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 122" in its title. 7. The applicant shall address screening and landscaping to describe views by pedestrians, bikers and car passengers including renderings. 8. The application will be subject to design review and approval that would include elevations, materials, and general renderings. 9. Bicycle racks shall be provided. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment— Hotel Parking Requirements — ZO00-97 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding hotel parking requirements. Goellner reminded the Commission that at their last meeting they discussed amending the Zoning Code language regarding hotel parking. She explained that the current numb�r of required parking spaces for a hotel use is 1.5 spaces per unit plus parking for other uses. She reviewed several other cities requirements and said staff is recommending the parking requirement be changed to 1 parking space per unit plus parking for other uses. Segelbaum asked if other cities address what they feel is appropriate parking for banquet space. Goellner said not many cities she researched addressed banquet parking. Zimmerman added that Golden Valley's Code requires 1 space per 3 seats for convention and exhibition halls. Segelbaum suggested hotel banquet space be added to the convention and exhibition hall language because he is concerned that someone might take advantage if there are no requirements regarding banquet spaces. Waldhauser suggested that the language be changed to say event spaces. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 7 Blum said the language staff is recommending seems reasonable and cansistent with what other communities are doing and it will give the Super 8 Hotel an opportunity to expand. Cera suggested reviewing a couple different areas of the parking language regarding events, banquets, and restaurants. Zimmerman said staff will review the language pertaining to those uses. Kluchka said he feels comfortable with the proposed change for hotel parking. Waldhauser said the expectation is if there is another use, staff would just figure out which parking requirements are compatible, so she doesn't have an issue with leaving the "other uses" language in the hotel parking requirements. Segelbaum said it is fine to use staff discretion but banquets and events are uses that can be anticipated so he'd like the language to be more clear in this case. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission could just consider the proposed change to the hotel parking and staff could bring back additional information regarding other uses, or staff could review other uses and discuss them when this item goes to the City Council for consideration. Segelbaum said he is comfortable with the item going to the City Council, but if there are widely different numbers in staff's review it may be worth bringing the item back to Planning Commission. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend amending the Zoning Code regarding hotel parking requirements to 1 space per unit plus parking for other uses. 4. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Single Family Residential Height and Side Setbacks — ZO00-98 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To conSider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding building height, side setbacks, and side wall articulation requirements. Zimmerman explained that in 2006 the City studied infill development including height, massing, setbacks, etc. He reminded the Commissioners that they discussed the interpretation of the Zoning Code changes made as a result of the 2006 study at their last meeting and staff now has a clearer understanding of what was intended. He stated that the Planning Commission consensus was that height was to be measured at one spot at the street frontage, both side setbacks would increase the same amount according to that one front measurement, and that this was intended for new construction. He stated that what has been happening since 2006 was a tiered (wedding cake) setback for both new construction and remodels. He explained that one option is to grandfather in existing homes and move forward with the interpretation as intended, or another option is to change the Zoning Code language to match how staff has been interpreting the Code Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 8 since the infill development study changes were adopted. He showed the Commission several illustrations showing houses that interpreted the Zoning Code both ways. He added that the text amendment staff is bringing forward at this meeting is language that will grandfather in homes that were built prior to April 15, 2015. Cera asked if there needs to be language added to the Zoning Code to clarify the original intent. Zimmerman said the language doesn't need to be amended if the way it was meant to be interpreted is followed and applied uniformly. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed grandfathering language will apply to all side setbacks in the City. Zimmerman stated that the proposed language will apply to anything that was built with a building permit prior to the Zoning Code changes. Segelbaum questioned what would happen if something was built within a setback area and asked if they would be considered legally non-conforming. Zimmerman stated that legally built structures would be allowed to remain and are considered to be conforming. He said he would get further clarification from the City Attorney. Blum said he would feel more comfortable if the proposed language pointed to the specific ordinance that they are trying to clarify and not include everything built in history. Zimmerman suggested rather than replacing the existing Subdivision 14 maybe the new language should state the dates of January 1, 2008, to April 15, 2015, in order to be more specific. Waldhauser noted that the same language regarding grandfathering was added to the Code in 2008 and questioned what harm there is in saying that everything legally built prior to a certain date is grandfathered in. Segelbaum said there is ambiguity regarding what the Zoning Code was at the time building permits were issued. He added that he is not sure that it is appropriate to change the language regarding structures that were built prior to 2008. Kluchka suggested adding language about variances in the proposed new ordinance. Cera said he doesn't want variances to become Zoning Code language. He wants variances to stay variances. Segelbaum said he's not sure the City knows what was compliant or not at the time building permits were issued, so he would like a separate section of Code addressing this time period. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Steve Schmidgall, 6534 Olympia Street, said he was on the Planning Commission when they came up with the language regarding the increased side yard setbacks. He referred to an illustration showing the potential volume of a structure and said he thought that is what the Commission at the time was proposing. He said mostly what drove the efforts of the past study was unsightly tear downs and re-builds. He added that his intent was to define a buildable volume and that anything could be built as long as it was within the volume area. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, encouraged there not to be a huge period of uncertainty. He said he knows when the City decided to study subdivisions there was question about what was going to be included and what was not and there ended up being six applications submitted in a midnight charge. He said from what he is understanding there are certain rules, which may or may not have been observed for many years, and now the City wants to really clamp down and make those rules rigid. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 9 said he wants to make sure there isn't a period where people can run in with their permit applications and they get in under the wink and nod rule. Todd Ereth, 240 Meadow Lane North, said he is encouraged to hear where this is going and is encouraged that the Planning Commission wants to take time to understand the gap period. He said there have been a lot of builds in his neighborhood, some have had the wedding cake shape and some have not. He said there has been some concerns about what the City was trying to do and what the City was approving because some have felt they are conforming and some have not. He said he appreciates the City trying to figure out what truly was conforming during that timeframe. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked Zimmerman about the timing of this amendment. Zimmerman stated that this item and the Subdivision Study recommendations are scheduled to be on the April 7 City Council agenda. If it is ready to go forward the language would be effective upon publication of the ordinance. He added that if more time is needed the conversation could be continued to the April 21 City Council agenda. Cera stated that he came across his copy of the Planning Commission minority report that became the majority report written in 2008 and it was clear how to interpret the Zoning Code language proposed at that time. He said he has a problem with the City continuing to misinterpret the Zoning Code language until April 15. He said people applying for building permits now should be told they have to follow the Zoning Code language as it was intended. Kluchka asked if policies have changed yet. Zimmerman said no, because people have submitted plans based on information given to them from the City. He said the idea was to allow those plans time to get through the building permit process. Kluchka asked if a communications campaign has been started to let people know about the April 15 deadline. Waldhauser said there is no way of knowing who is about to submit plans. Segelbaum questioned if the Planning Commission truly determined the intent of the Zoning Code language. The Commissioners agreed that they have determined that the language has been interpreted incorrectly. Blum said he agreed with Commissioner Cera that the City should not continue to misinterpret the Zoning Code now that the intent is known. Zimmerman stated that the issue has not yet been considered by the City Council, so there is still a question of if they want to change the interpretation. Segelbaum suggested that the Commission discuss amending the proposed language. The Commissioners discussed at length the specific language in Subdivision 11(A)(3), Subdivision 14 and proposed a new Subdivision 15. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to amend Subdivision 11(A)(3) removing the words "any part of," as follows: Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a�-�aar�-a# a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 10 The consensus of the Planning Commission was to keep Subdivision 14 as is. (Subdivision 14. Height and Side Setbacks of Pre-2008 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if the side setbacks and height were compliant with the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued, the location and height are considered conforming to current Zoning Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code.) The consensus of the Planning Commission is to amend staff's proposed language for Subdivision 14 by adding a new Subdivision 15 to read as follows: Subdivision a-4 15. Side Setbacks of January 1, 2008 to P�e-April 15, 2015 Structures, Building Permits and Applications. Far all structures constructed and building permits issued or applied therefor in the R-1 Zoning District on or after Januar rL1, 2008, and prior to April 15, 2015, if the �a� side setbacks were considered by the City to be compliant with Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(A)(3) of the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued or applied therefor, the side setback is considered conforming. �e . However, in all cases, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following: • Modify the proposed Subdivision 14, making it Subdivision 15, to include the dates and various edits reviewed earlier. • Edit the Zoning Code, Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(A)(3) second sentence phrasing to read...the distance between a structure and the side lot line shall be governed by the following requirements: --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman gave an update on the Liberty Crossing proposal at Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road. Kluchka asked about the status of the Golden Villas proposal and the J-HAP proposal. Zimmerman said both of these projects are still moving forward. He stated that the City Council liked the idea of a pedestrian overlay district for the Golden Valley Road/TH 55 area. He said they also want to consider rezoning the vacant parcels on Golden Valley Road to allow senior housing. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 23, 2015 Page 11 No report was given. Kluchka referred to the motion the Commission made at their last meeting recommending that the City Council consider traffic issues on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that he has since learned that if there is something the Commission wants the Council to consider, the process is for the Chair to send a letter to Council, not to make a motion at the Commission meeting. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 pm. �' � ;�c�--- � t Charles D. Seg Ibaum, Secreta Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant