Loading...
12-10-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 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 Monday, December 10, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner. 1. Approval of Minutes November 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Segelbaum stated that he would like to add that the reason he abstained from voting on Conditional Use Permit 163 (Watermark) is because he felt he had incomplete information about the potential increase in noise due to sirens and without that information it was unclear to him if the impact could be mitigated. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 26, 2018, minutes with the above noted addition. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South – CU-164 Applicant: Morries 840 Pennsylvania Ave Re, LLC Address: 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow off-street parking for employees of the Morrie’s dealership located to the east at 7400 Wayzata Boulevard. Zimmerman referred to a location map of 840 Pennsylvania Avenue South and explained the applicant’s proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for off-street parking for an adjacent commercial property. He noted that the vacant industrial building currently located on the property would be demolished as a part of this proposal and that pedestrian improvements to allow employees to safely cross the street to the Morrie’s dealership are recommended. Zimmerman discussed the existing conditions of the property and explained that the building currently on the property was built in 1962. In 2014, the City declared the building “unsafe” and “uninhabitable,” there are no trees, a few small shrubs, a small front lawn, one curb cut, and the impervious surface is currently 92.2%. Zimmerman explained that the proposed use for the property includes a 67 stall surface parking lot for the employees of the Morrie’s dealership located at 7400 Wayzata Blvd. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 2 The applicant is proposing 176 new shrubs and 18 new trees, the impervious surface percentage would be reduced to 58.9%, the existing curb cut would be maintained, and new lighting, consisting of three poles, would be installed. He added that the proposed new lighting must comply with City Code requirements, screening of the parking area from public streets is required, and that the parking lot is to be used for employee parking only, not for storage of dealership inventory. Zimmerman discussed the factors of consideration used when evaluating Conditional Use Permits and stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Segelbaum questioned the need for additional parking and asked if this dealership has increased in size recently. Zimmerman stated that Morrie’s did amend their PUD approximately four years ago which reduced the amount of parking by adding a second building to their site which is part of the reason that they would now like to move their employees off site, across the street. Baker noted that the dealership is required to have a certain number of parking spaces and asked if this proposed CUP will have any bearing on the existing parking spaces Morrie’s currently has and if their PUD will need to be revised as a result of this proposed CUP. Zimmerman stated that the current Morrie’s PUD does require a certain number of parking spaces but it doesn’t differentiate between employee spaces, customer spaces, and inventory spaces. He added that the City has heard from dealerships that inventory storage is a constant challenge and reiterated that the City Code allows for off-street parking on adjacent properties. Segelbaum said he would like to know if any concessions were made with the approval of Morrie’s PUD amendment. He said if there were concessions made for example in the amount of impervious surface, it now seems as though that accommodation may have been given away for nothing. Zimmerman explained that the Morrie’s lot was all pavement and parking lot area before the second building was constructed so they did not take away any pervious surface but in fact increased it slightly with the addition of a turf area in the front. Phillip Branson, Director of Real Estate and Facilities, Morrie’s Automotive Group, explained that much of the use of the current Morrie’s parking lot is dictated by the manufacturer’s required inventory levels. As inventory levels go up the need for additional parking goes up as well. He stated that they have approximately 75 employees currently so the proposed CUP for parking across the street won’t accommodate all of their employees but it will help significantly. He referred to the conditions in the staff report and said they agree with all of them and that the existing building is really unsafe and they will be demolishing it regardless. Baker asked if the manufacturer requires them to have a certain amount of inventory adjacent to the building. Branson said they have to have a minimum amount of vehicles inside the building and on the premises as a whole. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 3 Johnson asked if they have considered adding public art or if they would be open to the idea of adding it. Branson said they would absolutely be open to having public art. He stated that their goal is to provide moments of happiness and that they want to have a nice parking lot for their employees. Segelbaum asked if all of the parking spaces that would be opened up on the dealership property as a result of granting the CUP would be used for inventory parking or if they have any intention of using those spots for anything else. Branson said the spaces would be used for inventory parking. He added that they have not thought about adding additional green space because that would somewhat defeat the purpose of buying the property across the street. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum stated that this property is surrounded entirely by commercial or industrial properties. He added that this proposal will remove a blighted property and that there are a lot of positives with this proposal including reducing the amount of impervious surface and adding landscaping. Johnson stated that if staff is amenable to working with the applicant regarding public art he would like a report back to the Planning Commission. Zimmerman agreed. Angell said he thinks the proposal makes sense and it will help alleviate problems for this business and for the City. Segelbaum said it seems as though this is an improvement and that the landscaping proposal is generous. He stated that it also seems like when the applicant got their PUD they needed all of their parking spaces so this feels like incremental grabbing and not giving back and he would like them to do something to remove the amount of impervious surface in their main parking lot. He added that he realizes the CUP is for a different property so the City can’t put conditions on the main dealership. Blum agreed that he would like to seize on opportunities when they arise but they can’t do anything about the subject property in this case. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Brookins and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 164 allowing off-street parking for employees of the Morrie’s dealership located to the east at 7400 Wayzata Boulevard subject to the findings and conditions as follows. Findings: Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: 1. Standard met. In order to accommodate the demand for space for dealership inventory at the nearby commercial lot, the applicant has worked to provide off-site parking for employees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 4 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: 2. Standard met. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the Mixed Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for accessory parking in order to support existing businesses. Effect upon Property Values: 3. Standard met. Given the presence of the neglected existing building, surrounding properties would likely benefit from its replacement with a landscaped surface parking lot. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: 4. Standard conditionally met. Traffic flows are not anticipated to be substantially different from those that currently exist for employees arriving at and departing from the commercial property across the street to the east. In order to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movements for employees crossing Pennsylvania Avenue South, a pedestrian crossing and associated sidewalk connection to the new parking lot would need to be constructed. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: 5. Standard met. Due to the nature of the proposed use (parking), there are no anticipated increases in population or density. Compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy: 6. Not applicable. Increase in Noise Levels: 7. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: 8. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: 9. Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. Visual Appearance: 10. Standard conditionally met. Installation of landscaping between Pennsylvania Avenue and the surface parking lot would help mitigate the visual impact of the proposed use. The removal of the vacant building at this location would improve the visual appearance of the property. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare 11. : Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area. Conditions: 1. Off-street parking is authorized for employee vehicles only and shall not include the storage of dealership inventory. 2. No parking shall be allowed within the required yard setbacks, consistent with the requirements of the City Code. 3. Landscaping that screens the parking area from the view of public streets shall be installed, consistent with the requirements of the City Code. 4. Site lighting must comply with all requirements of the City Code, including the installation of timers, dimmers, or sensors to ensure lighting levels are reduced during non-business hours. 5. A pedestrian crossing (including crosswalk with ADA accessible ramps, pavement markings, and signage meeting MMUTCD standards) and an associated sidewalk connection to the new parking lot shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 5 3. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Amendments – ZO00-118 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider ways to update and modernize the uses allowed in the Business and Professional Office Zoning District Goellner reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their November 13 meeting. She explained that there is an opportunity to modernize the existing code language for the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. She stated that staff is 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. Goellner stated that at the November 13 meeting there was discussion about pawnshops and payday lending businesses. She explained that pawnshops are considered to be a retail use, not a financial institution and they are licensed by the City. Payday lending businesses are considered financial institutions, are licensed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and would be permitted under this proposal. Baker asked if there are any properties that would lose their office designation as a part of this proposal. Goellner stated that most of the office properties are not changing, but some of them will become mixed use and offices would still be allowed as a permitted use. Johnson questioned if recreational facilities should be defined. Zimmerman said there is danger in having language that is too specific, it is better to leave the language general and use the dictionary definition if issues come up. Johnson asked if a property could be used just for a recreational facility. Baker said his understanding is that a recreational use would have to be accessory to the office use. Zimmerman agreed and suggested adding the words “accessory to the office use” in the code language. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 6 Blum asked what “Essential Services Class I” means. Zimmerman said it is items typically found in the right of way or a utility easement such as electricity, water, gas, cable, power poles, etc. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said he didn’t see language included about food or restaurant types of services which he thinks is good. Zimmerman noted that there is language included about allowing limited retail use accessory to an office which would allow for a small cafe or restaurant with a CUP. Blum asked if those types of uses would be accessible to the public. Zimmerman said the language would not exclude the public but that would be addressed as part of the CUP process. Blum referred to the setback requirements and questioned if the “wedding cake” type of setbacks for height should be considered. Zimmerman stated that the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts are the only ones that have the “wedding cake” setback requirements. He stated that the language could require a larger front yard setback for taller buildings but that could affect the walkability and having buildings that are closer to the street versus being set back further on the front. Brookins stated that there are already regulations restricting the height to three stories so he’d be in favor of leaving out detailed language about height and just dealing with it through the CUP process. Zimmerman said he is hesitant about taking out the height language because a CUP is granted by right so it is helpful to have the requirements spelled out rather than leaving it on a case-by-case basis. Baker suggested that staff review the language about height to try to find some middle ground between the walkability with buildings close to the street and buildings set too far back from the front of the property. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the Business and Professional Office Zoning District. 4. Discussion Item – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Firearm Sales – ZO00-117 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the Commercial Zoning District to regulate the sale of firearms Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission has been asked by the City Council to consider new zoning regulations regarding the sale of firearms. This item was discussed at Council/Manager meetings on August 15 and November 13. He explained that state law limits the ability of local municipalities to regulate firearms beyond state statute but the City can within reason legislate the location of firearms sales. Also, similar to sexually oriented businesses, the City can buffer or specify distances from other uses. He noted that other metro area cities have firearm sales separation requirements based on: residentially Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 7 zoned properties, day care facilities, schools, religious institutions, libraries, parks, governmental buildings, and community centers. They also have minimum distance requirements between firearm sales uses and other firearm sales uses, pawn shops, currency exchanges, payday loan agencies, liquor stores, and sexually oriented businesses. He added that in Golden Valley, firearms sales are currently allowed in Commercial zoning districts and are prohibited as a home occupation. Zimmerman stated that staff mapped the impacts on potential locations based on various buffers around residentially zoned properties, including the Mixed Use Zoning District, parks and play areas, schools, religious facilities, and libraries. He showed the Commissioners maps that indicated 100, 300, and 500-foot buffer areas and asked for feedback regarding the strictness of the language and providing reasonable, non- discriminatory regulations. Zimmerman stated that some other restrictions to consider are security including where and how in the building firearms can be stored, storage of ammunition, requirements around alarm systems, and limiting sales to permanent buildings. He stated that some of the considerations for site requirements include limits on window displays, exterior loudspeakers or public address systems, building construction, and prohibition or regulation of firing ranges. Baker asked if it would be illegal for the City to outlaw firearms sales. Zimmerman stated that the City has to allow for firearms sales with reasonable restrictions on their potential locations. Johnson questioned what the City is trying to protect and suggested considering language that looks at density or restrictions on places where there are a lot of people. Zimmerman noted that there are cities that only allow firearms sales in industrial zoning districts. Segelbaum referred to the language regarding measuring the distance from certain other uses and asked if the City’s measurements included properties outside of the City’s boundaries. Zimmerman stated that he believes the City can only base its requirements on uses within Golden Valley. Baker asked if there are any existing firearms sales locations in the City. Zimmerman said no. Baker said he is curious about the intent of not locating firearms sales near other “undesirable uses” such as liquor stores, or sexually oriented businesses. He questioned what the City is trying to achieve. Zimmerman noted that some cities group those types of uses together. Segelbaum questioned if it might be a good idea to come up with a justification as to why they are proposing a particular buffer be put in place in order to help with potential challenges to the Code. Zimmerman said the discussions with Council have been about limiting the opportunities for gun sales because the fewer opportunities there are the less chance there is for crimes to occur. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 Page 8 Pockl asked about the Police Department feedback. Zimmerman said the Police Chief didn’t have a feel for the buffers or the land use issues, but he liked the security measures mentioned and the idea of not allowing firearms to be displayed in windows. Blum said he thinks the Planning Commission should formulate their own rationale of what they think is reasonable. He said he also thinks that different setbacks or buffers from other types of uses seems reasonable and thoughtful. Segelbaum said it might be helpful to hear how other cities came up with their reasons and said it is difficult to say something without justification. Johnson stated that their charge should be re-framed to state that they are limiting possible locations for firearms sales. He said he takes umbrage to protecting some residents and not others and reiterated that they should be looking at density or proximity to commercial locations. Blum stated that generally there is enhanced protection for people who can’t protect themselves so he thinks they should talk about buffers from schools first. Baker said he doesn’t think there is a relationship between protection and purchase. Blum said that the first point of possession is at the point of sale. Segelbaum said he agrees with Blum and that buffers around schools is the highest priority on his list. Pockl said she would include day cares as well. Brookins suggested that the largest buffer be around properties zoned Institutional. Baker said he would like a large buffer around parks too. Johnson suggested allowing firearms sales in the Industrial zoning district with a CUP because there probably aren’t as many vulnerable people in those areas. Segelbaum said it might be more appropriate to keep sales out of school areas. Baker said he would like to see both. Zimmerman said he would create a map with buffers around Industrial properties for the Commission to review. Segelbaum questioned if retail sales are allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. Baker reiterated that he would like see an objective relationship between gun sales and other “undesirable uses.” Blum stated that the most common drug association with crime is alcohol so that distinction could be made. Baker questioned what that has to do with those two stores being next to each other. Blum added that “undesirable uses” clustered together could hurt property values and would make areas feel less like a neighborhood. Angell questioned if Minnesota has a waiting period for firearms sales. Zimmerman said it would be helpful to know if the Commissioners think that buffers should be used or not. Baker said he thinks there is no harm in creating distance between firearms sales and other uses. Segelbaum said it is a matter of prioritizing because locations for firearms sales need to be available somewhere. Pockl said she agrees with Segelbaum and thinks the focus should be on areas they want to keep firearms away from and not to focus on “undesirable uses.” Brookins said he would not classify everywhere that sells firearms as “undesirable.” He said he thinks the Minneapolis Code spells out their requirements nicely and that the focus Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 10, 2018 � Page 9 should be on both allowing sales in certain zoning districts and requiring buffers around certain other uses. Zimmerman said staff will create some maps showing the largest buffering around schools and day cares and smaller buffers elsewhere and bring this topic back to a future Planning Commission meeting. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall gave an update on items recently approved by the City Council including the Conditional Use Permit for Shapco (the parking lot east of 1109 Zane Ave N), the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the 2019 Budget. He stated that at the next Council/Manager meeting they will be discussing the Rising TIDES Task Force, 2019 legislative priorities, and the 2019 City Council strategic planning session. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 pm. ;�� �,d� � r � R n lum, Secretary Li a ittman, Administrative Assistant