06-27-16 PC Agenda AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, June 27, 2016
7 pm
1. Approval of Minutes
June 13, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 8814 7t" Avenue North —
Big Deals Liquidation Outlet— CU-153
Applicant: Big Deals Liquidation Outlet
Address: 8814 7th Avenue North
Purpose: To allow for Accessory Retail Services in the Light Industrial zoning
district.
--Short Recess--
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
4. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
5. Adjournment
���. Tt�is doCun�7enf is availabl4 in alterrtiate f�armats up4r�a 72-t��ur�equ�5t, Please call � �
763-593-800b(TTY: 763-593�3968)fio make� request. Exam�les of alternate fiormats
�� rt�ay in�lucl�large prirrt,�lectrr�nic, Brai(le,audioc�ss�kt�,etc. � � � �
.��
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
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 13, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Johnson, Kluchka� Segelbaum,
and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Assaciate
Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant I�isa V1littman.
Commissioner Baker was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
May 23, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Blum referred to the findings on page 8 and noted that they were r�umbered incorrectly.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnsan and motion carried unanimously to
approve the May 23, 2016, minutes with the abave noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 825 Boone Ave N —
Executive Leasing — CU-152
Applicant: Executive Leasing
Address: 825 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To aflow for auto sales/rentals in the Industrial zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and stated that it is zoned and guided for
industrial uses. The building is a multi-tenant building with a mix of office and light
industrial uses and is approximately 25,600 square feet in size. He explained the
applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the leasing of new and used
vehicles in approximately 3,360 square feet in the northeast corner of the building. He
stated that although the business is almost exclusively leasing, they are required per their
state license to maintain five parking spaces on site for vehicles. Those five spaces will
be created inside the building via a new garage door on the north facade. He added that
there will be four to five employees in the office on a daily basis and approximately one to
two customers per week would visit their location.
Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements and explained that four spaces are
required for the proposed use. He noted that there are 47 existing parking spaces on site
with some additional capacity behind the building so staff feels there is adequate parking
available to accommodate the proposed use. He stated that staff is recommending
approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit because there is low to no impact to the
surrounding properties and roads.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 2
Johnson asked if the five required parking spaces have to be interior parking spaces.
Zimmerman stated that the five required parking spaces are a requirement of the dealer
licensing process, but they can be internal or external.
Brian Hansen, Applicant, said their current location is at 63�d Avenue and Highway 169.
He stated that they are moving from that location because another tenant in the building
needs that space and this proposed new location fits their needs. He explained that they
have to have five parking spaces in order to have a car sales license from the State, but
they don't maintain an inventory, or have sales, and they don't conduct a normal used car
business.
Segelbaum asked the applicant what his relationship is to Executive Leasing. Hansen
said he is the President and Co-Owner.
Blum asked how many jobs this proposed use will bring to Golden Valley. Hansen said
there will be approximately six employees on site on a regular basis.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka noted that at the last Planning Corr�mission meeting there was a long discussion
about the loading and staging of cars. He`said he doesn't see the same issues in this
case, but he wants to be consistent. Segelbaum agreed that there is a lower volume of
cars in this case. Waldhauser agreed and added that there are no negative impacts with
this proposal and she thinks it is a positiue thing #o bring small businesses to Golden
Valley.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconde�l by Blum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following
findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. Demonstrated"Need`for the Proposed Use: The City requires that an applicant
identify a market far the proposed good or service necessitating a CUP. Executive
Leasing has been in business for over 20 years has an established customer base.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An auto leasing office is consistent
with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the addition of the garage door would
not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the use would be minimal. Staff
does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibration.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 3
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Based on the site plans submitted, the visual quality of the property
would be not be impacted.
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use.
Conditions:
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department dated May 25, 2016, shall become a part of this approvaL
2. No motor vehicles for lease or sale shall be located on City streets.
3. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles shall take place on-site.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 9050 Golden Valley Rd —
Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union — CU-151
Applicant: Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union
Address: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow for a financial institution, including drive-in facilities.
Zimmerman explained that this property is currently zoned and guided for high density
residential development. However, it is under cc�nsideration for rezoning and reguiding to
Business and Professional Offices. He stated that the applicant is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow far the operation of a credit union with a drive-thru and if
the rezoning and reguiding are not approved by the City Council, the credit union use
would not be allowed at this lacation.
Zimmerman ref�rred to a site plan and stated that the applicant is proposing to re-use the
existing building and to add a canopy and second drive-thru lane on the west side of the
building. They are also proposing changes to the parking layout, a new accessible ramp,
and madifications tQ th� drainage from the roof. He referred to the parking requirements
and stated that 11 parking spaces would be required and 44 spaces would be provided.
They will have an estimated 10 employees and approximately 30 customers per day.
Zimmerrnan explained that the main concerns with the original Conditional Use Permit for
a fast food restaurant included the noise from the drive-thru speaker and having enough
space for stacking cars in the drive-thru lane. He stated that there will be sufficient room
for stacking in the drive-thru lanes with the proposed credit union use versus the fast food
use and the decibel level of the speakers will not be audible over the ambient noise at the
property line. He added that there is a vegetated buffer along the west property line and
there will be 84 feet between the speaker and the multi-family property to the west. He
stated that staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit because the
impact of the proposed use will be reduced compared to the previous fast food use. He
also stated that there could potentially be an opportunity in the future for shared parking
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 4
with the proposed senior housing development to the east since the proposed credit
union would not be open nights or weekends.
Segelbaum said he understands that the Planning Commission is to consider this
proposal with the assumption that the property will be rezoned to Business and
Professional Offices and asked what types of uses are allowed in the Business and
Professional Offices zoning district. Zimmerman stated that office uses are permitted and
several other uses are allowed with a conditional use permit such as limited retail,
daycare, and financial institutions, among others.
Segelbaum asked about the setback requirements in the Business and Professional
Offices zoning district. Zimmerman stated they are in line with the Gommercial zoning
district and in this case they are using the existing building which is conforming.
Segelbaum noted that some applications, like subdivisions, have standards they have to
meet and if those standards are met, the City has to approve the applicatic�n.'' He asked if
conditional use permits fit in that category. Zimmerman said no, typically conditional use
permit proposals involve uses that are permitted, but have certain conditions attached to
help control negative impacts.
Phil Blasko, HTG Architects, stated that they will be adding bicycle racks to the site. He
explained that the fire lane is supposed to be 20 fe�t wide, but it will narrow to 19 feet at
the end of the canopy which the Fire Chief has said is ok.
Segelbaum stated that one factor they consider when reviewing conditional use permits is
if there is a need for the proposed use. He noted,that in this case there is another credit
union nearby. Kluchka added that there are two other credit unions nearby. Segelbaum
asked the applicant why he thinks there is a need for this use at this location. Roger
Magnuson, Facilities Manager, Affinity Plus, said they have a lot of inembers in the
northwest metro area and they don't have a location in the area to serve them. Kluchka
asked where the next closest loeation is. Magnuson said there is a location near the
University of Minnesota.
Kluchka asked if Affinity PJus Credit Union is associated with a certain business.
Magnuson said it started with County and State employees, but it is now open to others.
Segelbaum asked Magnuson if they expect to have local customers. Magnuson stated
that they have 5,000 to 8,000 members in this zip code area and that they have been
looking'for a location in this area for a number of years.
Waldhauser asked if their expectation is that this location would work for Affinity Plus for
the long term. Magnuson said yes.
Waldhauser asked if they would consider removing some of the excess parking area.
Magnuson said they don't anticipate a lot of growth in their drive-thru business, but that
they do get a lot of customers coming inside the building to do business with mortgages
and car loans, etc.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 5
Kluchka noted that this property probably won't be visible from Highway 55 and asked if
that would impact bringing in new customers. Magnuson said no, this is a destination
location and not a location that will be obtaining new customers every day.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Blum said he realizes that staff is saying that the Planning Commission should view this
proposal as being conditioned on the City Council's approval of the proposed rezoning
and re-guiding to Business and Professional Offices, but he questions if it is putting the
cart before the horse procedurally and if it is really a good way to do business. He stated
that as it stands the application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not
meet the second factor they are to consider. Zimmerman stated that this is a unique
situation and that there were some limitations with the zoning that the applicant wasn't
aware of so the City doesn't want to penalize the applicant and wants to keep the process
moving forward. He added that the proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan if the City Council approves the rezoning and re-guiding af the property.
Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission envisioned th�is area as a walkable,
residential area with services for those residents. The concern if the land use changes are
approved, is that she is not sure where that puts the City in terms of the broader
Comprehensive Plan vision. Zimmerman stated that the proposed use fits with the
Business and Professional Offices zoning distriet, but it is hard to predict what will fit in
the future when there may be a new mixed use zoning district.
Kluchka said he would be on board with this this proposal if it was a credit union with six
stories of condos on top of it because he thinks that was the intent. Segelbaum referred to
comments made at the previous meeting regarding this property and said there was a
sense among the Planning Commission to make this property a neighborhood asset and
to make the area more walkabte. He questioned if this proposal achieves that. Blum
added that this busirress by its �ery nature is encouraging vehicles to drive to it with the
addition of the propos�d drive-thru which isn't as pedestrian friendly as other businesses
might be. It also might r�at be consistent with the guidance they've received from the City
Council in regard to this area. Waldhauser noted that if the property is not rezoned it
could remain a fast faad restaurant with a drive-thru which will have even more traffic than
the proposed credit union. However, if the property is a restaurant local neighborhood
people will walk ta it. She added that the credit union won't be a neighborhood service
whereas a fast food restaurant would be. Segelbaum stated that this is an area that can
handle more density and this proposal isn't utilizing the land for that opportunity. He said
he doesn't want to lose an opportunity in this area.
Kluchka asked about the status of the proposed intersection improvements. Zimmerman
stated that staff has been working with MnDOT on improvements to the slip ramp on
Highway 55 in order to force cars to slow down as they leave the highway. Kluchka noted
that only traffic going west can access the slip ramp. Traffic going east on Highway 55 will
have to go to Boone and Decatur to get to the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 6
Johnson stated he knows that they are trying to frame this area for future growth and that
changes can be made in the future, but he thinks it is a slippery slope to start defining
what a neighborhood is. He said he doesn't want to parse where customers are coming
from and he wants to be cautious how they talk about the applicant's business growth.
Segelbaum stated that the City has worked hard to plan for this area and he is not seeing
how this proposal addresses walkability or density.
Waldhauser stated that if they presume the rezoning happens then the question is how
does this use fit? She said she thinks the proposed use does fit in the area and that it will
be a quiet site for the residential properties nearby especially at night and on weekends.
Zimmerman agreed that there might not be any changes in this area for several years so
the City has to think of the best options for the short term.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit. Blum reiterated that he doesn't think #his prt�posal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan which is one of the factors they are supposed to consider
when reviewing conditional use permits. Segelbaum stated that another factor they are
supposed to consider is the demonstrated need far the proposed;use and he doesn't think
that has been demonstrated. The motion to recommend approval failed. Commissioners
Johnson and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Blum, Kluchka, and Segelbaum
voted no.
4. Major PUD Amendment— NQrth Lilac Drive Addition — 810 Lilac Drive North —
PU-42, Amendment#6
Applicant: M+O Properties
Addresses: 810 Lilac Drive North
Purpose: To allow a 2,510 square foot building addition for storage and
warehouse space.
Goellner referred to a site plan, gave a brief history of the site, and explained the
applicant's request to remodel the existing office building and to add a warehouse space,
a patio, bicycl� parking, a trash and recycling enclosure, and landscaping. She showed
the Commission renderings of the proposed warehouse addition and the location of the
patio and trash enclosure. She stated the uses on the property include offices and small
clinics and that the proposed small warehouse will be accessory to the anchor office
tenant, Platinum Remodeling. There will be no retail sales and no large clinic tenants. She
referred to the parking requirements and stated that 47 parking spaces are required and
that 48 spaces are proposed. The existing parking area will be reduced to accommodate
the new addition and patio and the parking area will be resurFaced to meet City Code and
ADA requirements. She added that a shared parking agreement with the adjacent
property owner can be required if there is a parking shortage in the future.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 7
Kluchka asked for clarification on the location of the clinic use and asked Goellner if she
was referring to the pain clinic. Goellner said yes, she was referring to the pain clinic and
an acupuncture clinic.
Kluchka asked how this building will be differentiated/distinguished from the SUMA MRI
clinic next door. Goellner asked Kluchka if he meant how the land uses were
distinguished from each other. Kluchka asked how the design of the properties would be
differentiated.
Segelbaum asked about snow storage and removal and questioned if a condition should
be added to the recommendation. Goellner said she thinks that would be an appropriate
condition given the small amount of space for snow storage on this site.
Segelbaum asked if any conditions regarding sidewalks should be added to the proposal.
Goellner noted that the language regarding sidewalks in the application refers to internal
sidewalks. She stated that Lilac Drive is too narrow to add sidewalks typically required in
other PUD amendment proposals throughout the City.
Segelbaum referred to bicycle parking and asked if the City:cares where that is placed.
Goellner said bicycle parking is typically located within 50 feet of the front door.
Segelbaum asked if a landscaping permit will be'required. Goellner said a landscaping
plan is required, but probably not a permit because they are not removing much existing
landscaping and they will be meeting the landscaping requirements and working with the
pervious space as best as they can.
Blum noted that the landseaping plan shows that they will be planting buckthorn. Goellner
stated that staff would not support the planting of buckthorn.
Segelbaum stated that nothing'was highlighted in the report in regard to what is being
proposed versus what is allowed in the underlying zoning district, but it looks as though
one setback is being reduced. Goellner stated that the north setback would be slightly
smaller.
Waldhauser noted that the proposed patio is a permeable surFace and asked if there has
been any mention of grading the parking lot to have the patio catch some of the run-off.
Ben Delwiche, architect representing M+O Properties, stated that he assumes the
property owners will be looking into the amount of impervious surFace on the site and
noted that the plans for the proposal were done to meet the minimum requirements.
Kluchka asked how this building will be distinguished from the building next door.
Delwiche stated that the existing building will be getting a facelift, including paint and
leaving the standing seam roof. New signage will help differentiate the properties as well.
Kluchka asked why they want to maintain the existing blue metal roof. Delwiche said it is
a high quality roof and it is in great shape. He added that the rest of the colors will be
muted with red accessories. Kluchka said there is an opportunity to make this building
visually appealing. He suggested some kind of variation in color because there is a lot of
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 8
the same color in a long span of wall and he would like some visual differentiation.
Delwiche agreed and said there are more recent graphics with more color shown. He
added that there will be textural differences as well.
Segelbaum asked if there is a snow removal plan in place. Delwiche said he doesn't know
if there is a plan in place currently, but there will be one.
Segelbaum asked what the patio will be used for. Delwiche said it will be used by
Platinum Remodeling employees and by the other tenants.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka referred to the recently constructed CenterPoint building which has a lot of white,
gray and black. He said he is concerned that if the Commission doesn't tell the applicant
to liven up the facade the City is going to have another gray building. Segelbaum
questioned if that is part of the Planning Commission's purview. Kluchka said it is and he
wants to see accurate renderings. Delwiche stated that the renderings submitted are a
first rendition. He said they are proud of the look of the building and feel the color palette
is appropriate given the mish-mash of buildings in the area. 'Kluchka said the building next
door is fairly historical and is a very different sfiyle, so he is sensitive to the context here.
Blum said he is excited to see this building getting some investments and he is glad the
applicant is investing in Golden Valley. Segelbaum agreed and said right now the building
looks like an old hotel and it will look more like an office building when it is finished.
Kluchka said he doesn't think the building will clash with the area, he would just like to
see more color variation across the walls. Johnson said he thinks the proposal is great
and it might pressure others in the area to bring their properties up.
MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed;PUD amendment with the following findings and conditions:
Findinqs
1. Quality Site Planning, This amendment to the PUD aims to reinvest in a property
that:requires updates in order to be viable in the current office market. The site is
relatively srnall, but the applicant has placed the building addition in a location that is
least impactful to its surroundings. By providing a patio with seating and bicycle
parking, the applicant is improving the site for future tenants.
2. Preservation. This amendment aims to preserve as much vegetation as possible.
Even though some would be removed for the proposed building addition, the
applicant plans to add 6 trees and 168 shrubs and perennials to the site.
3. Efficient & Effective. The PUD amendment includes efficient and effective use of
the land. The PUD plan provides for small office users to utilize this location near
major highways. The size of the warehouse addition is reasonable and fits well
within the current site plan.
4. Compatibility. The PUD amendment would result in an office development with a
small amount of warehouse space, which is compatible with adjacent office and
commercial uses. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 9
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. The PUD plan
provides high-quality landscaping additions to the site, an outdoor seating area,
bicycle parking, and an update to the parking lot in order to comply with ADA
requirements.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision
and all other PUD ordinance provisions. The PUD provision permits flexibility from
other provisions in Chapter 11 of the City Code. This flexibility is permitted in order
to promote the intent and purpose of the PUD section of the City Code.
Conditions
1. The plans prepared by M+O Properties, submitted on May 12, 2016, shall bec4me a
part of this approvaL
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the mema from the Engineering
Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, June 3, 2016, shall become a part
of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from`the Fire
Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, May 19, 2016, shall become a
part of this approval.
4. A detailed Lighting Plan in accordance with the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements
(Section 11.73) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. If the City determines at any time that there is an in�ufficient number of vehicle
parking spaces at 810 Lilac Drive North, the owner shall provide the City a written
parking mitigation plan to remedy the insufficiency, which shall include a shared
parking agreement with an adjacent landowner.
6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff.
7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
5. Brookview Community Center Presentation
Glen Waguespack; HGA;Architects, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the design for the
new Brookview Cornmunity Center. He discussed the new building which will be a two-
story building with brick veneer and glass and will be clad in anodized aluminum. He
showed the Commissioners the floor plans and renderings of the interior and exterior of
the building. He discussed parking, loading, landscaped screening and some of the
sustainability strategies.
Waldhauser referred to the indoor play area and asked if it can be used for other things
as well. Waguespack said probably not, because the entire area is full of play structures.
Waldhauser asked if the senior spaces could be used as multi-purpose space especially
on nights and weekends. Waguespack said yes and explained that the plans call out
senior space, but it won't be exclusively used by, or labeled for seniors.
Blum asked if the child care area will be managed by staff. Waguespack said he believes
the space is just available for use and won't be staffed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 2016
Page 10
Johnson asked if there will be any space for teens. Waguespack said there isn't
designated teen space, but that is more of a programming issue.
Waldhauser asked if any consideration was given to a green roof design. Waguespack
said yes, but it is cost prohibitive. He noted that they will be installing a solar reflective
roof.
Blum referred to the fire pit area and asked if drinks would be served outdoors.
Waguespack said he believes so.
Segelbaum asked about the timing of the project. Waguespack said they,are in the
construction document stage until the beginning of August, the bidding process will be in
September and they hope to start construction early October.
--Short Recess--
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevefopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Waldhauser gave an update on the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting she attended in
May.
7. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 pm.
John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
p__�7��� {^$�;�/,d�'"�,;i.. 3 j%)j��'
i..� &, l��d ��
� .� a w� ,;. �.
�f •
. ,��. �. �. ,. � �:.�� . . ,v� .;� .
�"'h�r�i�a�1 I�eve��pm�.��� ��part�cr�ent
7f�3�°��3W8CI9S 1?+63w5�!���'1(?9 tfax)
Date: June 27, 2016
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Chloe McGuire Brigl, Planning Intern
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-153) to Allow for Accessory
Retail Services Incidental to a Permitted Use at 8814 7th Avenue North
— Big Deals Liquidation Outlet, Applicant
Background and Proposed Use
Big Deals Liquidation Outlet is proposing to include a retail component to accompany a primary
warehouse use in its targeted location at 8814 7th Avenue North. This property is zoned Light
Industrial and guided for long-term Light Industrial use. Retail sales are allowed as an accessory
use with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if the retail area occupies less than 10%of the building's
gross floor area.
The subject property is bounded by 7th Avenue North to the south and industrial properties to
the north. It is directly across the street from the new TruStone Credit Union and the Perkins and
Culver's restaurants.
The applicant would like to lease approximately 4,400 square feet of space in a multi-tenant
building. The proposed retail component would use roughly 1,500 square feet in a building with
66,142 square feet gross floor area. This translates to 2.3% of the building's total square footage.
Two other accessory retail uses already occupy 6.9% of the building. Together, the three
accessory retail uses would occupy 9.2%of the building's gross floor area.
The applicant currently leases space in another Golden Valley building off Highway 55. Big Deals
Liquidation Outlet is a destination and online business. The majority of the space, approximately
2,900 square feet, or 66% of the tenant's space, would be dedicated to merchandise to be
liquidated via truck or sent out for mail orders. Approximately 1,500 square feet, or 34%of the
space, would be used for destination retail. This area would have retail shelving, a checkout
counter, and an open area for furniture display. Big Deals Liquidation Outlet has 4 total
employees.
If the CUP were to be approved, the applicant would relocate to the proposed site. Proposed
days and hours for the retail operation are 11 am —6 pm Tuesday through Thursday, and 10 am —
5 pm Friday and Saturday. Big Deals Liquidation Outlet states that these hours were chosen
strategically to complement the other two existing accessory retail locations in the building and
attempt to minimize car traffic in the parking lot.
The hours for the other accessory retail locations in the building are currently as follows:
Empty the Nest:
10 am —6 pm on Saturdays, 11 am —5 pm on Sundays, and 10 am —6 pm on Mondays
New to You Thriftique:
10 am —5 pm on Wednesdays and Fridays, 10 am —7 pm on Thursdays
The site has a,front parking lot that contains 112 spaces. The applicant has been assigned eight of
these spaces. A rear loading area handles deliveries and shipping.
By code, retail uses require 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area.
Warehouse uses require 1 parking space for every 3,000 square feet for gross floor area. Based
on the proposed layout, the applicant would need:
1,500 sq. ft. retail @ 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 6.0
2,900 sq. ft. warehouse @ 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. .97
7.0 spaces required
The only remaining concern is if the weekday retail sales and its associated parking could create a
conflict with the parking for the regular businesses in operation during the week. The applicant
has indicated that they expect 30-40 customers throughout an average day. This equates to
around 5-6 customers per hour. Staff is recommending a condition of approval be included that
requires the applicant to work with the City to revise hours and parking if necessary to address
any issues that arise.
Evaluation
The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the
following factors:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Big Deals Liquidation Outlet is an existing
business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past
experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of retail demand there
would be for their operations.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A warehouse use with a retail component is
consistent with the Light Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan
Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the
surrounding property values.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is moderate and
concentrated Tuesday through Saturday. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to
the surrounding areas.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minor
increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise
levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase
in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests:The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does
not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects
of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant light industrial property with adequate
parking to serve the individual uses.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 153 allowing for accessory retail services
incidental to a permitted use at 8814 7t" Avenue North. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit
is subject to the following conditions:
Plannin�
1. The plans submitted by the applicant dated June 10, 2016, shall become a part of this
approval.
2. Retail sales shall be limited to Tuesday through Saturday
3. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or
his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to
highlight the existing eight parking spaces in the front parking lot and to reserve them for
customer use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to
adequately address parking concerns.
Fire
4. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine fire
inspection after occupying the space.
5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
Plans received June 10, 2016 (1 page)
_. . _
_ __ _
_ _ __ --
965, 935 =_- __. --- ._:_
870 �5
$� 830 8511
92 5
858853
gp 5 g Sp 82 5
--9105,- 8-00 825
• 820 1830 �
801 8�
, y Subject Property: -
8814 7th Ave. N. `
835 747 750
102
676 745 107�108 " � '
a —'- � �2 00 .
6T2 Z 712 - 111
670 � ? 730 745 �* 730 311 11
668 Q a '�`' 31079-
663 �....t 1 ' .�r.,'.�5" s1
,Gz TOt � ,7 Ui 03. 308
660 201 112 1046'� S�� '301 304306
884C883E8834E8 828 881881 4 880E880.1 ,
65g 202 111�µ 107103A 03 8836 8832 j882A�8812 8808 710 1
656 ' 203110� #7091OS 102 •}
i'
' 209 2�205B ',, ' ` i,'LL
� n s�s 205A � 8800 [ � 71
� zoa ,�� -. , �- �' 1 ,s
�2�a; '� ��: :,. . as�s �,
iz� � �
�s,9�ao' �.^ 2z
8.843� 300
8900 � 605 6� �'100
• + 200�t
7�a101� 1 9�� 9�0 8806
12 .
9e9110 600 ,. _ .., .--•._ �
a �.,.,...--
e �
, �,-^.."'a �„�..,,,.�
.�,,,,,,,,.�,....-•'"'r p�.,r+.."""_....-- __-
9100 9010 8 iS0 �,�„W-�"''"";, ✓...a.°°"""_-�^ _ -
� '' ' — " ...--�"""F_ —"
_ >
—- " �d —� — —
, —
� ,_ _
_ N�� p� _-- -
t,o��r{•:,y ,^_' _
� �..
_ _ - " f glate N�"Y_'a`' 4; _ ,
8815
_ - ` _�^ - p�;,, ,.,' 439 .
.. ,.
440 42 4
_�.,..,.. _ - 8951 89d5
B!G DEALS Liquidation Outlet� buys and sells a wide selection of inerchandise acquired from retailers
and catalog companies. We sell by the truckload, pallet and piece to other liquidators, retailers and
online sellers. The majority of our space(2900 sq ft,see attached map}will be designated for the
transportation of inerchandise to and from our warehouse via truck and mail order sales. The
remainder of the space(1500 sq ft,see attached map)will be designated for our retail operation selling
items to individuals via hours of operation. We have a total of 4 employees between the warehouse,
online sales department and retail store.
Our proposed hours of operation for our retail site are:
Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday 11am-6pm
Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm
We are a destination business and expect to f�ave 30-40 customers throughout the day. Our space will
consist of retail shelving a retail checkout counter,and an open area for furniture display.
We don't feel this will disrupt the neighboring tenants as our hours vary slightly from both Empty the
Ne�t and New tp yau Thrifkic�u�minimi�ing the��r trafFic coming in and put pf the parking lat.
Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Saneere#y.
t
�y_
Laura Condon
i---� �.� _�_ �.___ -�.-�- ����-_1 � � f
_ _ (�� _
� f ( f ��.��� i � �.� - ������ R � � I ���.__.� . ! ( (..
� � � ��
'� .....� _,... .�..R _� .v_...�_,r.�.a. � �;�_.-�. �� � �
� I�
� � �
� i I I f � � � � ; t.�.e_r___� � .4�_ f � v. � ar E _s ._._ l�=-� � i ..__�-._i�._.�I_____'--i—_' �4__ .,
kv.m_��..�_t�a_�,.—__.�,..�.an.i���t._�.u..t_���___._� __�� �_��_�,�.�.:n�...�_--.�_�.,._�u�_� _'— C___�_f.�__�_.r_—�_._. ;__- � --;-- '---� - �
� I I i I � � I ! I � � i I I � � i
�
��� I F d � ,_�.�. � I_ I_�6�_� �,
E__,_-_s,__ �-� E� �a _-�_� ��.__
� , �.n_ �
� _ �.� . __ �
� _ . _ �� � � «___.a ! xm � ��i, _��_� i.�.� E.��_ ' � � ��� ��_
- , 4� -. _ _-__ r -�---, � -���� , � � .� �.�.1� 4 _t.T_:-
� � � � � � ,
�� � � i � f__�i � � �
� ` ' I
� �
,
, , � � �
. ; r.__,�_,.,,__ .,_.�, _�_, � ._ __ __,__ i
�
L'Q F�t� ' .A A�..���.'�
��
SN��,N� ��r,e��v,�� '
I -
�
;
�,��:.i��t� �/ j
�-��,at�� ;
�
�c�'. G��4�,;�,*���
�
,
;
!
,�� -.-_. G...._ r -.-�� _.... .._... �. .., 1 E
i
i ���
� ; I
�k+�� ,:.��� f j
d.�,��►.2�.� E
_ 4
�
; __
_
i t����,�� S,a�s
I
_ � �,zo� 1,��sc�.�..
;
. _ _ _� I
_ f
.� � �
L�'�2�{' ��J`�-.
�
� 4�' ------�{�
� ,� ,L.�—,-e— �.--.�—,�-;—_—� _ � h ; ' .�� _, k ° ' � t � i---}____:—�� _ ',�
�`�'�f�6 4 , � � f �-� ��'i.'_ N�,.��.Q� i i I
� g Y ; ' r j i r p i r s � '; , w I � � ; , t I � �
---���---, ; � — t� � ���� � ' ' —_._.���____� �
�Y��� ; --;�-- —_.�--r---�}'�.M1 _Ray� -f____S� _�___•—f _��i—,
� � k � �i� t ' : fi � � } ` ` k ' h f�� � � h �
�...�_ � t____� . 7 :.-��--�—���--�---t�---�-----�r �-----i � ��' t t--• ---'---- �.i�_y._
I k �---e—e �--.e—
� � �� �� ���i � ` � ; f r �, �o � r 'i i � ; ! F I
r� � P � �$ { t p s , i � C i I � k � i �
ti ...—.�.. r . ____z�..��.�� .��____.4.�--��_—{—�—�-t�—m-��.._....� ____._.�_._.._�.�.L_ . r—.._._.�,��t,.�._�
���� , i � E j i � ,�_I � I �, � �� � ; ��
y �
� � i
: t � r
i
��____�k-��__. � ,�r�. a���.� � , . ;�.�.�.�.-�.� .�t__��...�. __ ` '� ' _ _� � ' '_
� � k I:� ' f.. I d �_f���.�. � ' __.._ ��. � T� I_____ � I
�.�r� e��"`? —n.�_��'.---��t--t--ri'€---5----6—.��e_.� �-k—�—i—1---6----9-r�_i—t----� -- � �TI—�}�_i.�