Loading...
11-13-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 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 Tuesday, November 13, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Pockl was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes October 22, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 22, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Lot Consolidation – 1320 Fairlawn Way – Nelson Addition – SU10-10 Applicant: Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. Address: 1320 Fairlawn Way Purpose: To combine two existing parcels of land. Goellner explained the applicant’s proposal to consolidate a parcel of excess land from MnDOT highway construction that is too small to be buildable and the property at 1320 Fairlawn Way into one single family lot. She referred to aerial photos and drawings of the property and explained that the lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and the eight conditions for approval or denial listed in the City Code. Baker asked how often the City gives excess land to property owners. Goellner said it doesn’t happen often and that there are only a few parcels of land that have been turned back to the City from highway construction. Segelbaum asked if the property would now be considered a corner lot. Goellner said yes and explained that the front setback of 35 feet would now apply to the north property line along Wayzata Blvd. and to the east property line along Fairlawn Way. She added that the existing shed is located a little too close to the new north property line, but it is grandfathered in and that the lot itself meets all of the Zoning Code requirements. Blum said he realizes this benefits the City as we will no longer have to maintain the property and asked there are any other benefits. Goellner stated that the land would become taxable. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 2 Johnson noted that when MnDOT acquired the lot it was larger and there was a home on it. Goellner agreed and stated that the home was removed for highway development. Angell asked if the homeowner at 1320 Fairlawn Way contacted the City about obtaining the remnant parcel. Goellner said she wasn’t sure how the process started but that the homeowner has done the survey and the title work. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said the findings seem valid and that the proposal seems to meet the requirements for a lot consolidation. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Lot Consolidation of 1320 Fairlawn Way and the remnant parcel to the north subject to the following condition: 1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. A Certificate of Title or Abstract of Title must be submitted to the City Attorney prior to the approval of Final Plat. 3. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – 1109 Zane Avenue North – CU-163 Applicant: Shapco Printing, Inc. Address: 1109 Zane Avenue North Purpose: To allow for surface lot storage of automobile sales inventory in the . Light Industrial Zoning District Zimmerman explained the applicant’s proposal to use the parking lot across the street to the west of 1109 Zane Avenue North for surface lot storage of automobile sales inventory. He stated that a similar use by a different dealership has occurred at this location in the recent past and that changes have been made to the Zoning Code which make this type of use a Conditional Use, so City review and approval is now required. He added that there is a deed restriction on this parking lot that limits the use of the property that will be removed. Segelbaum asked if the removal of the deed restriction is a part of this Conditional Use Permit process. Zimmerman said no, it is a separate process that will occur simultaneously. Zimmerman described the existing conditions which includes: 226 parking stalls, a stormwater pond to the south, trees and vegetation which provides screening to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 3 abutting properties, and six light poles. He added that the most recent use of the parking lot was for inventory storage by Luther Auto and that the restrictive deed dating to 1973 prohibits use of the property for anything other than employee parking for 1109 Zane Avenue and requires a 60 foot “greenbelt” to the east. Zimmerman explained that the proposed use would be to use the 171 easternmost parking spaces for inventory storage by Morrie’s and the 55 westernmost spaces for employees of Shapco. Also, the applicant has asked for flexibility in the ratio of storage to employee parking. Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the minimum number of parking spaces required for the manufacturing and warehouse uses at Shapco is 134 spaces. He explained that the 171 proposed inventory spaces would leave 118 spaces for employee parking which is a 16 space deficit. Zimmerman explained that staff didn’t calculate the exact amount of manufacturing space versus warehouse space inside the building, but he is comfortable with the proposed parking space counts because there doesn’t seem to be a great parking demand. Zimmerman referred to the lighting on the site and stated that the existing lighting may be nonconforming, but legal if the applicant doesn’t make any changes. However, this Conditional Use Permit request allows the City to require conformance with newer lighting requirements. Zimmerman discussed some of the other impacts including screening and noise. He stated that the screening of vegetation along the eastern edge of the parking should be maintained and is consistent with the deed restriction. In regard to noise, the hours of operation should be limited to 7 am to 10 pm, which is consistent with other City restrictions and that deliveries of vehicles should be limited to individual trips, as opposed to mass transport. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the conditions listed in the staff report. Segelbaum noted that the City had recently contemplated different screening requirements and asked if the screening on this property falls under those new requirements. Zimmerman stated that the recently amended screening requirements mostly concentrated on R-1 properties but that visual impact, especially to residential properties, is something that can be considered with this Conditional Use Permit proposal. Baker said he recalls there being some concern about security on these types of parking lots used for dealership inventory. Zimmerman stated that Morrie’s is hesitant to completely enclose the parking lot. He added that he has reached out to the Police Department staff to see if they have concerns, but has not heard back from them yet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 4 Segelbaum asked if a Conditional Use Permit is needed because the applicant doesn’t own the property. Zimmerman stated that a Conditional Use Permit is required for this use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning District no matter who owns the property. Baker asked Zimmerman to clarify the parking requirements. Zimmerman explained that there are 226 parking spaces total. 134 spaces are required for the manufacturing and warehouse uses at Shapco. 171 spaces are proposed to be used for inventory storage which would leave 118 spaces for employee parking and a 16 space deficit. Baker asked how many parking spaces are located across the street with the Shapco building. Zimmerman stated there are 63 spaces in that parking lot. Baker said he is concerned about employees parking on the street if there aren’t enough parking spaces. Zimmerman stated that staff had the same concern but the evidence over the last few years shows there hasn’t been an issue with any cars being parked on the street. Blum asked if the property was in compliance when this lot was used for inventory storage in the past. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code was not clear about inventory storage. He noted that the inventory storage occurring on this property led to discussions regarding storage and dealership inventory parking in the City. He added that there is also the deed restriction that needs to be dealt with in order to continue to store dealership vehicles at this property. Joel Shapiro, Applicant, said they allow for an extra 15 or 20 parking spaces that they don’t allow dealerships to use in case they need them. He added that they have never had to park any cars on the street. Baker asked about the maximum number of inventory storage cars they’ve allowed. Shapiro stated that they have never had more than 100 inventory cars on that lot and that they have never used trucks or transports to deliver the inventory storage. Baker asked about the number of employees. Shapiro said they have 115-120 employees but they have three shifts. The day shift uses the most number of parking spaces and mostly uses the parking lot near the building and approximately 30 spaces in the parking lot across the street. Baker suggested reserving 45 spaces in the parking lot across the street just to play it safe. Shapiro stated that Luther stored inventory there for four years and they never had any issues. Segelbaum asked where customers park. Shapiro stated that they park in the lot near the building. Baker asked about the maximum number of customers. Shapiro stated that customers come and go and that there may be two or three at once. Shapiro added that when the parking was empty his evening employees had to shoo away people soliciting sex so he doesn’t think it had a greater or better purpose when it was an empty parking lot. Zimmerman added that the parking lot used to store scrap metal which was not looked upon well by the neighboring property owners. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 5 Segelbaum noted that the proposed conditions talk about storing inventory vehicles only and that he wants there to be an understanding that equipment, trailers, boats, etc. should not be stored in this parking lot. Shapiro agreed that they would never store anything other than passenger vehicles. Baker opened the public hearing. Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said she was involved in 1973 when the parking lot property was connected to Shapco by the deed. She said it is alarming that the deed restriction will now be removed. Baker noted that the Planning Commission is not involved in the deed. Zimmerman stated that the deed has a restriction which limits what can occur on the property. He explained that the City is proposing to remove the deed restriction and put a similar restriction in the Conditional Use Permit instead. Bennion stated that if the deed restriction is removed someone could ask for a different Conditional Use Permit to use the parking lot for another use. Segelbaum noted that the parking lot would be subject to land use regulations and zoning restrictions just like all other properties in the City. Blum added that removal of the deed restriction is not happening at this meeting. Bennion reiterated that she is concerned about how the property will be used. She said she doesn’t want it to be used as a storage area for other things, or for it to become a junkyard. Baker stated that there will be a condition of approval that will create a very narrow use of this site for dealership inventory storage only. Bennion noted that the Police Department has said that they’ve had very few problems at this property. Blum asked Bennion what she is able to see through the buffer of trees and vegetation. Bennion stated that initially she wanted a 60 foot buffer and that the property owner was asked to put in a berm with screening which helps. She said in the summertime she doesn’t see much. She can see light, but she can’t see the cars. She said she knows that some of the neighbors like the lighting. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Baker referred to the conditions of approval and asked if “inventory vehicles” is defined. Segelbaum suggested saying automobile dealership inventory. Zimmerman noted that the Zoning Code says automobile sales inventory. Baker referred to the condition of approval that states the maximum number of spaces permitted for inventory storage shall be limited to 200 and questioned if that is too generous. He suggested 175 or 176 spaces instead. Segelbaum noted that the required amount of parking spaces is 134. Brookins said he doesn’t see a need for the City to put a strong number on the amount of inventory storage spaces because it is up to the owner of Shapco to make it work for his business. He noted that the parking counts given are not exact and there is some office space in the building as well so he is very comfortable with what staff has proposed. He said his only hesitation is that the Conditional Use Permit follows the land. He said he is concerned about removing the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 6 deed restriction if by removing it makes the parking lot buildable for something else. He added that the neighborhood would also be concerned about that. Baker asked the Commissioners if they have any concerns about the casual nature of the dealership and land owner agreement regarding a flexible number of vehicles and parking spaces. Brookins said no, he thinks it’s a great use, the relationship works well, and it is in the owner’s best interest to allow flexibility. Blum referred to the finding regarding the generation of odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration. He said he doesn’t think they can deny this Conditional Use Permit proposal, but it isn’t accurate to say that the proposed use is not anticipated to generate odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations and suggested the wording be changed to state that the proposed use will generate an acceptable amount of those things. Segelbaum agreed with Blum about his proposed re-wording and said he thinks the proposed use is reasonable. He said he thinks it is important to consider cars parking on the street, but the applicant and staff have said that has not been an issue so the proposed use seems appropriate. Blum said he thinks it would be appropriate to require that the lighting on the site be brought into conformance with the current lighting regulations and suggested that be made a condition of approval. Angell noted that condition number six in the staff report states that site lighting must comply with all requirements of the City Code. Blum said he would like it clarified that the existing lighting isn’t grandfathered in and that the site will be brought into conformance with the current City Code. Brookins questioned if that applies to both properties on either side of Zane Ave. Zimmerman stated that the focus area is the parking lot on the east side of Zane Ave. Baker summarized the proposed modifications to the conditions and findings as follows: 1. The first condition should be modified to state that storage is authorized for “auto” inventory vehicles only. 2. The second condition should be modified to state that the maximum number of spaces permitted for storage shall be limited to 176 rather than 200. 3. The sixth condition should be modified to state that the site lighting must comply with the requirements in the City Code “without benefit of any legally non-conforming use.” 4. Finding number eight should be changed to state that the proposed use is not anticipated to generate “excessive” odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. Johnson said he is comfortable with allowing storage for 200 vehicles as recommended. Baker stated that if the applicant needs more parking spaces for inventory storage they can come back to the City and ask to amend their Conditional Use Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 7 Brookins stated that “automobile” storage might be vague and questioned how a 1-ton truck might fit into that definition. Johnson suggested saying “car/light truck.” Segelbaum agreed that it would be good to clarify what would be allowed. Brookins questioned if the age of the vehicles should be considered. Zimmerman noted that there needs to be an explanation of the impact they are trying to mitigate. Angell added that language regarding the age of the vehicles would be hard to enforce. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Brookins and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #163 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: 1. Standard met. The previous use of the site, as well as staff conversations with local auto dealerships, suggest there is a constant need for additional inventory storage in the City. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: 2. Standard met. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the Light Industrial designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which includes such uses as packaging and processing, light assembly and manufacturing, offices and showrooms, and warehousing. Effect on Property Values: 3. Standard met. Given the previous use of the site for inventory storage, there is no anticipated impact of the proposed use on property values in the area. : Effect on Traffic 4. Standard conditionally met. If delivery and pick-up of vehicles is limited to individual trips on and off the site, and large transport vehicles are prohibited, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively affect traffic flow and congestion in the area. Zane Avenue has the capacity to accommodate the minor increase in traffic that is likely to occur . Effect of Increases in Population and Density: 5. Standard met. Due to the nature of the proposed use (storage), there are no anticipated increases in population or density. Mixed Income Housing Policy: 6. Not applicable . Increase in Noise Levels: 7. Standard conditionally met. If the hours of operation are restricted to those consistent with other activities listed in the City Code, the proposed use is not anticipated to generate noise levels that would impact surrounding properties. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: 8. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. Impact of Pests: 9. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. Visual Impact: 10. Standard conditionally met. Maintenance of the vegetated buffer to the east of the parking lot will ensure that the visual impact of the inventory storage is mitigated to the benefit of the adjacent single-family properties. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: 11. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 8 Conditions 1. Storage is authorized for automobile and light truck dealership sales inventory only and shall not extend to other vehicles or equipment. 2. The maximum number of spaces for permitted for inventory storage shall be limited to 176. 3. Vehicle deliveries or loading shall not take place on Zane Avenue or within the parking lot. Inventory vehicles must be delivered or loaded elsewhere and driven to and from the site individually. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 am to 10 pm, Monday through Saturday. 5. Vegetative screening must be maintained in a strip 60 feet wide along the eastern property line as a visual buffer for the adjacent single-family homes. 6. Site lighting must comply with all requirements of the City Code without benefit of any legally non-conforming use. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing – 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: Final review of 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Zimmerman noted that the City has spent the last two and half years updating its Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff has received approximately 50 comments and has made some final adjustments based on those comments. He explained that the plan has nine chapters and a number of appendices and that a welcome statement and a vision statement have been added and that the plan is now ready for the public hearing portion of the process. Baker stated that he likes the inclusion of the vision statement. Segelbaum commended staff on their hard work. Johnson agreed and stated that in the welcome statement the words immigration status are vague and that if the Council wants to make a bold statement they should say it. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. 5. Discussion – Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Goellner stated that there is an opportunity to modernize the existing code language for the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. She explained that staff is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 9 proposing to add tech uses, healthcare uses, considering removing the catch-all provision for uses not listed, updating the name of the district, and rewriting the purpose statement. Goellner explained that the proposed new language keeps offices and class 1 essential services as permitted uses. It would keep adult day care centers, child care centers, daytime activity centers or facilities providing school and or training for disabled people, limited retail services, and permitted and conditional uses in buildings exceeding three stories in height as conditional uses. She stated that the proposed new language proposes to move financial institutions from a conditional use to a permitted use when no drive-through is present, it would keep heliports as a conditional use but the words “accessory to a professional office building” would be added. It would move recreational facilities from a conditional use to a permitted accessory use and it would add medical, dental, or optical clinics as a permitted use and medical, dental, or research and development laboratories as a conditional use. Lastly, the proposed name of the district would be changed to Office instead of Business and Professional Offices. Blum said he thinks the suggested changes are good. He referred to the language regarding financial institutions and suggested restricting pawn shops because they don’t fit the common understanding of financial institutions. Zimmerman noted that generally if a use is not listed as a permitted or conditional use it is a prohibited use. Brookins questioned if check cashing facilities should be listed. Blum said he has reservations about allowing uses that take advantage of people. Brookins stated that “financial institutions” is vague and questioned if that includes mortgage companies, etc. He asked if pawn shops are allowed in other zoning districts. Baker suggested using the word “banks” instead of “financial institutions” and noted that the City encourages low income housing and that they may need payday loan facilities. Brookins said he just wants to be clear about where these types of uses can operate. Goellner noted that other cities use “bank, credit union, or other financial institutions.” Segelbaum suggested further study regarding which term to use. Johnson said he wants to make sure both sides are considered and that if a company has a legal right to function they should be able to. Johnson referred to language regarding recreational facilities and said he thinks it is a good idea to remove the listed examples, but suggested there be a definition of recreational facilities. He added that he thinks changing the title is a good idea. Segelbaum asked if this language applies to home occupations. Zimmerman said no, home occupations are permitted in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District and this proposed amendment is just in regard to the Business and Professional Offices district. Goellner noted that several cities allow hospitals as a conditional use in their office districts. Baker asked where hospitals are currently allowed. Goellner stated they are allowed in the Institutional Zoning District. Segelbaum asked about surgical centers. Goellner said it would depend if the patients stay overnight. Baker asked if the clinic definition is clear. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2018 Page 10 Segelbaum referred to the language regarding the handling of goods in the purpose statement and questioned if a sales office would be permitted. Goeliner noted that staff is going to be creating a comprehensive list in the future of all of the uses allowed in all of the zoning districts. She added that this item will come back to the next Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. --Short Reces�-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 pm. , ' � �.W �,�- n lum, Secretary Lisa man, Administrative Assistant