Loading...
06-13-16 PC Minutes 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, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 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 numbered incorrectly. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 23, 2016, minutes with the above 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 allow 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 Commission 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 positive thing to bring small businesses to Golden Valley. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a market for 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 consideration for rezoning and reguiding to Business and Professional Offices. He stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for 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 location. Zimmerman referred 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 modifications to the 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. Zimmerman 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 Commercial 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 application. 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 feet 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 location is. Magnuson said there is a location near the University of Minnesota. Kluchka asked if Affinity Plus 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 of the property. Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission envisioned this 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 district, 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 walkable. He questioned if this proposal achieves that. Blum added that this business by its very nature is encouraging vehicles to drive to it with the addition of the proposed drive-thru which isn't as pedestrian friendly as other businesses might be. It also might not 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 food 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 to 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 this proposal 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 for 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— North 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, bicycle 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 landscaping 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 style, 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: Findincls: 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 small, 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 become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo 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 insufficient 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 Community 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 Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Me�tings 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. V v�� John Kluc ka, S cretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant