Loading...
11-14-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 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, November 14, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes October 24, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blenker and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 24, 2016, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 700 Colorado Avenue South — Morrie's Automotive Group — CU-154 Applicant: Morrie's Automotive Group Address: 700 Colorado Avenue South Purpose: To allow for automobile rentals with accessory automotive detailing and installation in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district. Goellner explained the applicant's request to convert the existing building to a multi-use space for auto installation, a training center, office space, Morrie's Heritage Car Connection gathering and rental space, and indoor and outdoor storage of automobiles. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the automobile rental and installation uses which will occupy approximately 31,000 square feet of the 45,000 square foot building. Goellner stated that the applicant will be relocating to this site from their current Pennsylvania Avenue site and that they anticipate having up to 10 customers per day with 1 to 3 employees on site for the rental operations. She added that the use of the building also includes a casual car club that will have up to 30 events per year with approximately 30 attendees. Goellner discussed the proposed hours of operation for the various uses and showed the Commissioners plans for the existing and proposed new vegetation. She explained that the Code requires 8 feet of landscaped screening from public streets for parking areas greater than 100 spaces and that staff is recommending additional screening along the east edge of the parking area to be consistent with the development guidelines in the I- 394 Mixed Use district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 2 Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and noted that 60 parking spaces are required and 52 spaces are proposed. An additional 8 parking spaces will need to be striped in the lot and these spaces will need to be clearly signed and left available for employees and customers. She added that no inventory may be stored in the spaces required by Code and that 4 bicycle parking spaces must also be added. Goellner stated that based on the evaluation of the factors listed in the Zoning Code staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit. Johnson referred to the requirements regarding parking screening and asked for clarification. Zimmerman stated that the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District has screening standards that require landscaped frontage strips between five and eight feet in width depending on the size of the parking area. He added that the City is requesting that the applicant install additional landscaping and screening to the site. Johnson asked if the impact to the sidewalk plan has been considered. Goellner stated that sidewalk is not planned for the west side of Colorado Avenue so the City won't be requiring the applicant to install any new sidewalks at this time. Segelbaum asked if there are any limits on the type of trucks or the time of day that trucks can pick up or drop off vehicles. Goellner stated that there won't be many deliveries per day and that the amount of vehicles being picked up or dropped off isn't a cause of concern on Colorado Avenue. Segelbaum asked if there are any restrictions on sales at this location to protect it from becoming a dealership. Goellner stated that the Conditional Use Permit would have to be amended to allow automobile sales. Segelbaum questioned when renting becomes leasing. Goellner said she doesn't think that would affect the Conditional Use Permit but staff would want to do more analysis if that were the case. Segelbaum noted that the property has been industrial looking up until now and questioned if anything relative to the building facade will change with this more retail type of use. Goellner stated that the applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing building or parking lot, but that the Planning Commission could add a condition regarding the facade if it is tied to impacts of the use. Blenker questioned where the required additional parking would be located. Goellner said the applicant will be designating eight additional parking spaces to accommodate employee/customer parking, but not expanding the existing parking lot. Blenker noted that the applicanYs narrative stated that they only operate the Heritage Car Connection for seven months out of the year and questioned if the site will shut down the rest of the year of if it would be used for inventory storage. Goellner said she thinks business is better for the rental use in the summer months, but that she doesn't think they will shut down the rest of year. Waldhauser said she thinks the office and training uses would be open year-round. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 3 Segelbaum asked how the proposed use compares to the permitted uses and if there are any items such as the amount of imperious surface that are grandfathered in. Goellner stated that all of the proposed uses are permitted, or permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. She added that if this were a new development more of the requirements in the I- 394 Mixed Use Zoning District would apply. Baker said he is trying to understand the intention of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and questioned if this proposed use is part of the vision for this area. Goellner said her understanding is that when the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District was adopted it was thought that the market would change and that there would be more traffic and people in the area. She stated that the proposed use of this property might not be quite what was envisioned but that there has been a lot of re-investment in the I-394 corridor. She added that the applicant will be using a site that has been on the market for quite a while which is good for the City and good for Morrie's. Baker questioned why this property has been hard to market. Goellner stated that preferences for industrial space have changed a lot. Segelbaum referred to the Conditional Use Permit granted for the applicant's property on Pennsylvania Ave. and asked if that was approved for car rental space, but not for event space. Zimmerman said the building on Pennsylvania Avenue does not allow for event space but this building on Colorado Avenue does. Baker said it would be interesting to know what issues the Planning Commission discussed during their review of the applicant's proposal for their property on Pennsylvania Avenue. Goellner stated that they talked about parking, additional landscaping, rental car storage, renting cars from the building, and trucks delivering inventory to the site. Baker noted that the Planning Commission has recently discussed dealership inventory storage and that it might be ok on property that is owned by a dealership. Blenker said she thinks inventory storage is already occurring on this site. Blum asked if the Zoning Code currently allows inventory storage on this site. Zimmerman stated that the applicant did talk to the City about storing cars at this site. He added that there have been complaints about cars being stored in other locations so allowing parking at this property on Colorado will help alleviate issues elsewhere. Lynn Robson, CFO Morrie's Automotive Group, Applicant, referred to condition #7 in the staff report which states if at any time the parking lot is restriped and reconfigured, updates shall be subject to the parking regulations within the City Code, including larger parking spaces and wider lanes. If at the time of reconfiguration, the Comprehensive Plan or other City Plan proposes a sidewalk along Colorado Avenue adjacent to the property, future reconfigurations of the parking lot must be consistent with the plans and shall include a sidewalk along Colorado Avenue and a direct pedestrian connection to Colorado Avenue. She said she is concerned about installing landscaping in an area where it might have to be removed in the future. She also questioned if these requirements apply if the parking lot is only restriped, and not reconstructed. Zimmerman clarified that the parking spaces used for customer and employee parking have to meet the code requirements when the lot is re-striped. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 4 Johnson questioned if the language regarding a "proposed" sidewalk along Colorado Avenue is strict enough. Goellner stated that the word "adopts" is probably a better word. She also suggested changing the language in condition #7 to state that if the parking lot is reconfigured, not re-striped, the updates shall be subject to the parking regulations in the City Code. Baker asked about the definition of"auto installation." Robson stated that it refers to pre-delivery inspection and work such as pulling plastic off, checking the oil, tires and brakes, and detailing the cars to get them ready for the showroom or customers. Baker asked about the inside storage. Robson said they will store their luxury vehicles indoors. Baker asked if there are plans to make the building exterior more attractive. Robson said there are no plans for the exterior at this time. She clarified that this is not a retail facility. It is more of a marketing idea and people pay to be in a club. She explained that it is not a typical vehicle rental facility either because people call to rent a car and staff meets them at the site for the rental. There would not be customers visiting the site without an appointment. Waldhauser noted that the applicant's narrative states there will be 15 to 30 employees on site and questioned where those employees are currently located. Robson said the narrative refers to the training facility and added that this location will be more centrally located for their various locations. She added that they will be hiring people for detailing. Blenker asked about the use of the site in the winter months. Robson said the car rentals won't occur in the winter but the other uses will occur year-round and there will be events for the car club. Segelbaum asked if the property is in compliance with the screening requirements. Zimmerman stated that the new uses will require screening which will bring it more into conformance with the current regulations in the I-394 Mixed Use district. Robson added that they will be installing vegetation on the east side of the property, but she is concerned about police being able to see into the site. Segelbaum reiterated his concerns about plans to make the exterior of the building look nicer than it currently does. Robson said they don't have immediate plans to change the look of the building but they will better define the Heritage Car Connection entrance and may consider additional details in the future. Segelbaum asked how often trucks will be dropping off cars. Robson stated that a transport will unload approximately once a week. Segelbaum asked if customers will be able to look at cars at this site. Robson said they don't intend to have customers walking the site. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 5 Amanda Heinrichs, law student attending for a class, asked how many cars there would be on site at any given time. Segelbaum stated there would be dealer inventory storage, the classic rental cars and the higher end dealership cars. He added that his understanding is that this facility will house 25 classic vehicles indoors and will be the pick-up and drop off center for renters. Goellner said there are approximately 100 parking spaces in the parking lot and that 60 of those need to be used for employees and customers. Zimmerman clarified that there are 30 to 40 indoor spaces for the heritage cars and 40 inventory spaces. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Blum questioned how they reconcile this with the conversation they had at their last meeting regarding dealership inventory storage. He asked if this is a way to shoehorn in this kind of use regardless of their last conversation which was to be more restrictive with dealership inventory. He said that it seems that the proposed installation use has to do with the direct sales that are occurring at a different property and is not directly related to the rental of cars at this property. Baker said his recollection of their last conversation was that he didn't see an easy way to restrict a landowner's of the use of their land if they own the lot. He said he feels differently about a dealership leasing property elsewhere just for their inventory storage, but in this case the applicant will own the property so he doesn't think the City has any basis to say they can't use their lot to store cars. Blenker said it seemed like the Planning Commission settled on allowing dealership inventory storage in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. She said that while this property is in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District it acts like an industrial property and it has good screening so she doesn't have any objections to the proposed use. Waldhauser agreed that their main concern was existing lots being rented to auto dealers to be used as auxiliary parking and that they were less concerned about dealers who own the lots they are storing cars on. Segelbaum noted that the proposed Conditional Use Permit is focused on the rental and installation uses. He said he thinks this is an appropriate location for a rental location and encouraged the applicant to improve the look of the building. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #154 subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 6 Findinqs: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Moving the company's light vehicle reconditioning and Heritage Car operations to this location would free up space at their other facilities, reducing the impact on surrounding residential properties. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The automobile repair use and Heritage Car Club, in conjunction with the other uses being proposed, is consistent with the goal of locating redevelopment along major corridors and increasing the job and tax base within the community. The property is designated for Mixed Use 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 and is isolated from any residential neighborhoods. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is expected to increase, as a portion of the site will act as a rental business and car club, which hosts events. Trips generated from the proposed uses do not exceed capacity of the roadways. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed uses may generate an increase in the number of employees and customers at the location compared to the past uses, but is consistent with the industrial properties surrounding the site and the Mixed Use district. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. Light auto reconditioning will take place during normal work hours. Events will end before 8 pm on weeknights and 5 pm on weekends. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust or odor. Minimal vibrations may be associated with the use but should not impact any adjacent uses. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: The applicant will mitigate the visual impacts of dealership inventory stored in the parking lot and increased use through vegetative screening of the parking lot. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is surrounded by industrial properties, has an excellent vegetative buffer on the north side of the site, and has adequate parking. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on October 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department dated October 17, 2016, shall become part of this approval. 3. All vehicle deliveries and storage of inventory shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street. 4. The minimum number of parking spaces required by the City Code for customers and employees must be clearly signed and striped. No inventory may be stored in these spaces. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 7 5. No vehicle parking may take place on landscaping or in the fire lanes. Minimum aisle widths must be maintained as defined by City Code. 6. Bicycle parking shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed uses, as defined by City Code. 7. If at any time the parking lot is reconfigured, updates shall be subject to the parking regulations within the City Code, including larger parking spaces and wider lanes. If at the time of reconfiguration, the Comprehensive Plan or other City Plan adopts a sidewalk along Colorado Avenue adjacent to the property, future reconfigurations of the parking lot must be consistent with the plans and shall include a sidewalk along Colorado Avenue and a direct pedestrian connection to Colorado Avenue. 8. Additional landscaping shall be installed consistent with the Development Standards for pedestrian circulation and parking screening listed in the Zoning Code for the I- 394 Mixed Use District. Before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit a detailed landscaping plan (number of plantings, species of plantings, etc.) to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- 3. Discussion — Outdoor Storage — Institutional and Residential Zoning Districts Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that this is a continuation of previous conversations regarding outdoor storage regulations in order to help address resident complaints. He stated that the focus of this discussion is clarification of the regulations in the Residential Zoning Districts focusing on screening of materials from the street and from adjacent properties, fencing and opacity requirements, paved surface versus driveway regulations, and RV screening. Zimmerman summarized staff's recommendations regarding front yard storage which include: allowing one RV or item on a trailer to be stored on the driveway, allowing temporary outdoor storage units for two weeks unless a Front Yard Storage Permit is issued, not allowing other items to be stored in front yards, clarifying the definition of front yard, and keeping the maximum fence height at 4 feet. He added that staff is also recommending that the definition of a front yard be amended to state that a front yard is the area between the street and the front plane of the principal structure instead of only the first 35 feet of a property. Zimmerman summarized staff's recommendation regarding side and rear yard storage which include: requiring a paved surface for storage, requiring a 5 foot setback from the property lines, requiring screening at 90% opacity from adjacent properties and 50% opacity from the street view, allowing temporary equipment and supplies up to 30 days, and keeping the maximum fence height at 6 feet. Baker questioned why the number of items such as boats and trailers allowed on a driveway is limited, but the number of cars parked on a driveway is not. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 8 Kluchka asked how the proposed recommendations relate to the street parking requirements. Zimmerman stated that cars are allowed to park on the street for 72 hours and that items can't be stored on the street. Blum asked about the requirements regarding piles of mulch or landscaping materials. Zimmerman said staff is proposing that the storage of landscaping or construction materials be allowed for 30 days. Kluchka asked if there are rules regarding semi-trucks and food trucks. Zimmerman stated that commercial vehicles are not allowed to park in Residential Zoning Districts. Zimmerman referred to impervious surFaces located in side and rear yards and stated that staff is recommending that paved surFaces (separate from the driveway) may be used to store items in the side or rear yard as long as the property does not surpass the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed and that the items being stored are located 5 feet away from the property line, which is same setback requirement for accessory structures. Baker asked if there is a definition of paved surface. Zimmerman said the definition of paved surface includes bituminous, concrete, or pavers, but not gravel. Segelbaum asked if staff is recommending that items stored in a side yard be on a paved surface. Zimmerman said the paved surface requirements only apply to the front yard. He explained that staff is recommending items in a side or rear yard do not have to be on a paved surface, just 5 feet away from the property lines and screened with a fence or vegetation of not less than 90% opacity for the side and rear yard and 50% opacity from the street. Baker asked how opacity is evaluated. Zimmerman said that staff has not had to evaluate opacity in the past because most people have been ok with some screening of items in a side or rear yard. Waldhauser said effective screening can be done with less than 90% opacity. Johnson questioned if there is a conflict between the front yard storage requirements and the side and rear yard storage requirements because a front yard is the most public part of the property and the proposed Code language is stricter for side and rear yard storage. Zimmerman agreed that the screening requirements are stricter for side and rear yard storage but there are more limits on what is allowed to be stored in a front yard. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners several pictures of typical storage and screening complaints and reiterated that clarification is needed regarding how much screening in a front yard should be required. Johnson asked if storage in a side yard has to follow the same side yard setback requirement as a structure. Zimmerman said no and stated that the current code requires a 3-foot setback for side and rear yard storage and that staff is proposing there be a 5- foot setback which is the same requirement for a detached accessory structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 9 Waldhauser asked if garages have been allowed to be located 3 feet from a property line. Goellner said no. Blum said a person could wedge a car between the side of a garage and the property line without having to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked about the rules for building a shed or an additional garage stall in a side yard. Zimmerman explained that a shed has to be behind the principal structure with 10 feet of separation between the two structures and five feet away from the side and rear yard property lines. Johnson asked why sheds have to be 10 feet away from the house. Zimmerman said he thinks it has to do with fire access and that he would check with the Fire Chief. Waldhauser said she has an issue with not being able to store anything in a side or rear yard for more than 30 days if the items are inconspicuous, or not visible because they are screened. Zimmerman suggested limiting storage to 30 days only in a front yard instead. Segelbaum said that items stored in a rear yard might not be so bad, but he thinks the side yard is different. Blum said he is concerned about allowing storage in side yards so close to the property line. He proposed a 10-foot setback requirement for side yard storage in order to encourage green space because side yards are just as sensitive, or more sensitive, than front yards. He said a lot of people live in Golden Valley because they can't reach out and touch their neighbor's house and he feels that is a competitive advantage he doesn't want to lose. Kluchka suggested using the existing buildable envelope requirements for storage issues as well. Waldhauser said a shed wouldn't be allowed in the back corner of a lot then because it would be outside of the building envelope area. Johnson questioned what is driving these changes and he wonders why the City would treat a moveable object such as an RV in a side yard any different than a shed in a side yard and if a shed is more appropriate 10 feet away from the house why it would be ok for an RV to be 2 feet away from the house. He suggested the proposed new language start with safety concerns. Zimmerman stated that some people will want to park their items in the side yard because the driveway is there and that is where they've always parked their items. Segelbaum agreed that a lot of people park cars, trailers, etc. alongside their garage. Kluchka said he thinks there is a doubte standard occurring because the subdivision requirements, including setbacks, were studied so mueh in the past but now they are saying that it is ok to put an RV in the side yard. He questioned if he is the only one thinking that there should be no storage allowed in a side yard. Blum said he thinks storage should be allowed in a side yard just not that close because 5 feet of green space is not enough and it makes the neighborhood feel tighter. He added that he agrees that the proposed new requirements are not consistent with what the City has heard over the last several years. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2016 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if any other cities prohibit side yard storage. Zimmerman said Edina and St. Louis Park do. Goellner added that St. Louis Park says there has to be 100% screening and there is a 6-foot height limit for fences which dictates what can be stored. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners what sort of screening they'd like to see. Baker said he thinks the concept of opacity makes sense. Waldhauser stated that if the space is narrow no one will be able to get through if it is filled with shrubs. She said she would like to see an opacity requirement of 60%. Kluchka said he would like the opacity to be 75% on all sides. Zimmerman said he would show the Commissioners examples of different opacity levels. Kluchka said he is driven by aesthetics and reiterated that he would like to use the existing building envelope requirements for storage. Segelbaum said he would be ok with using the building envelope requirements as long as a driveway leading to a detached garage is ok. Zimmerman said the next step is to take the information from the Planning Commission discussions to a Council/Manager meeting to get feedback from the Council. Then staff will start working on the new Code language and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. Johnson asked if there is a timeline for the Comprehensive Plan Update process yet. Zimmerman said staff is developing plan for the City Council to consider in December. Blum asked how long the Comprehensive Plan survey will be on the City's website. Goellner said there is no end date scheduled and that it will be available throughout the update process. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm. <.,,,_w, _ ,�/l �. John KI chka, Secretary Li a Wittman, Administrative Assistant