Loading...
pc-agenda-mar-27-23         REGULAR MEETING AGENDA  Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections. Some members of the Commission may attend virtually.  Members of the public may attend virtually by following instructions below.     Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001  and entering access code 2467 243 6574.    1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  February 27, 2023, Regular Meeting  March 13, 2023, Regular Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Luther Genesis Major PUD Amendment      – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2467 243 6574      5. Council Liaison Report    6. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    7. Adjournment  March 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid Meeting  REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call-in line. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Brookins. Roll Call Commissioners present: E. Brenna, A. Brookins, S. Ginis, L. Pockl, M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Chair Pockl Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner Council Liaison: Denise La Mere-Anderson 2. Land Acknowledgement 3. Approval of Agenda Staff suggested the discussion on the annual reports be moved to after the televised portion of the meeting. MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to approve the agenda of February 27, 2023 and move the discussion items to the untelevised portion of the meeting. MOTION CARRIED 4. Approval of Minutes Segelbaum noted a typo. MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to approve the meeting minutes of February 13, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 5. Informal Public Hearing – for 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden Valley Drive a. Future Land Use Map Amendment b. Zoning Map Amendment c. Preliminary Plat Applicant: Sentinel Management Company February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Hybrid City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 2 Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by noting the three items that are a part of this request and although it’s one item, there will be three votes. Zimmerman noted the location of the site within the City, the zoning, property size, and parking regulations. The proposal is a 2-phase redevelopment: • Phase 1 – demolish office building and construct a new, smaller, bank building • Phase 2 – relocate bank operations, demo old bank building, construct new multifamily building The proposed Wells Fargo building will be one story, 23 parking spots, and 2 drive through lanes. The proposed multi-family building will have 302 units in a 5-6 story building. Staff displayed images from the applicant. Changes in the land use and zoning will trigger the Mixed-Income Housing Policy. This project will set aside at least 46 units (a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom) affordable at 60% AMI for 20 years. Affordable units will be mixed throughout the building and indistinguishable from the market rate units. Future Land Use Map Amendment • The zoning will change from neighborhood mixed use to community mixed use. • The downtown traffic study in 2022 confirmed the ability for the intersection to largely maintain the level of service with the existing infrastructure. • The land use change creates a complete community by supporting the downtown area and incorporates new mixed zoning. • This will support opportunities for multi-modal transportation. • This will increase housing affordability. Zoning Map Amendment • The zoning will change from commercial to community mixed use. • No specific standards within the City Code to evaluate. • The downtown traffic study in 2022 confirmed the ability for the intersection to largely maintain the level of service with the existing infrastructure. • There are a variety of zoning designations around the site, this is consistent with other Community Mixed Use sites. • There are reduced setback and height regulations to allow buildings to be located closer to the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. Modification of Plat • Interior property lines will be adjusted to fit the proposed buildings. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 3 • Dedication of land along Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Ave for future off-street trail construction. • Incorporation of a ROW portion within Golden Valley Drive would be vacated by the City. • Dedication of ROW within Golden Valley Drive to accommodate a new cul-de-sac. Staff Review Lot Requirements • No minimum lot size or lot width requirements in the Mixed-Use zoning district • Yard setbacks and building height limits addressed through zoning at the time of plan review • Sufficient space for drainage and utility easements reserved along the site perimeter for existing and future utilities • Engineering staff provided two comments: o The applicant must update the cul-de-sac design on Golden Valley Drive based on concepts and comments provide January 23, 2023. This may also require dedication of additional right-of-way to accommodate the design. o Staff need to evaluate the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue to determine if any additional right-of-way is needed for a potential future mini- roundabout, or if any additional land must be dedicated for easements for a trail. Adjustments to the plat may be necessary. • No comments or concerns from Fire Staff reviewed the Factors and Findings that Govern Approval. All 9 standards were met, conditionally met, or otherwise not applicable. Staff noted public comment received prior to this meeting. • 2 submitted via the Golden Valley Speaks web page o Both opposed • 8 emails received by staff o All opposed • 2 phone conversations o Mostly questions about proposal and process The general themes of inquiries and concerns were: traffic, parking, privacy, theft, sunlight, height, home values, and loss of green space. The general themes of questions revolved around: • Can this be a true “mixed use” development (ie, within the building)? • Is additional height to make the project work appropriate given the impacts? • Could other uses (grocery store, restaurants) be included? • Why can’t the existing Wells Fargo building be saved/reused? City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 4 Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the guided land use for 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden Valley Drive from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Community Mixed Use. Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning for 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden Valley Drive from Commercial to Community Mixed Use (MU-C). Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor platting action, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate the planned cul-de-sac on Golden Valley Drive. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate if any additional modifications to the final plat are required in order to accommodate a future mini roundabout at the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road. 3. A park dedication fee equal to 6% of the land value shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat. 4. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. Commissioner Ruby asked if the City has requirements for understanding the impact on other areas from the extra shade produced by new buildings. Staff responded that the City doesn’t require a shade percentage but felt it was helpful for the applicant to provide shade data at the start of this process. Commissioner Brenna asked what the height difference is for commercial and community mixed-use. Staff responded that the former is two stories and the latter is six. The applicant limited one side of the building to five stories due to the potential impact of shading. Brenna discussed the pervious and impervious area limits and staff noted that there are fewer pervious surface requirements in a Community Mixed -Use than the Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Commissioner Ginis noted community input leaned towards a desire for other retail amenities. She added she’d like to ask the applicant why this development didn’t include those options. Staff noted that Mixed-Use Zoning requires first floors to be taller so they can be flipped to commercial uses in the future. Ginis noted the greenspace being added and asked about its proximity to the co mmercial area versus the residential area. Commissioner Segelbaum asked staff if there was a time limit so the applicant needs to complete the project in a certain amount of time. Staff noted the time limit on building permits and deadlines listed in a potential development agreement. Segelbaum noted the project before them isn’t the project that has to be built, the group is only voting on the zoning changes. Staff added that there will be a site plan review presented to Planning Commission in the future. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 5 Commissioner Ruby asked about the affordable units as part of this project and staff noted the City’s Housing and Development Manager is working closely with the applicant on this project. They continued to discuss the future of affordable housing, policies, and HRA approval of an affordable housing plan. The group discussed setbacks, primary entrances, secondary entrances, and parking. Chair Brookins invited the applicant to speak Fabrizio Montermini: Sentinel Management Company, Applicant presented their project and jumped in to address questions. The applicant started the conversation for this development in 2021 and they also met with numerous grocers and there were a few concerns: visibility, surface parking requirements, and Wells Fargo needing their site so they can maintain operations. Applicant continued with other ideas for future development ideas for community spaces. Burt Coffin, applicant architect, noted the p roposed project meets both the 2024 Comp Plan and the 2021 Downtown Redevelopment Framework Plan. He noted the landscaping, parking, bike parking, the residential courtyard, and stormwater plans. Commissioner Ginis asked the applicant to discuss their plan to filter and control the rate of the stormwater runoff because it’s often an overlooked benefit to the community. The applicant noted there will be underground tanks and infiltration, additionally there will not be underground floors which makes this easier. The goal is to collect all stormwater runoff from the site and not allow it to run off onto neighboring areas or to flood the streets. The conversation continued on about the building plans, size of the units, common areas, demographic goals, EV charging stations, and the current plan compared to what is already built in the City. Chair Brookins opened the public forum at 7:08pm. Chair Brookins noted the comments received via Golden Valley Speaks and are on record. Ron Quanbeck 7930 Golden Valley Road Regarding the land use and guiding and zoning, I have lived here less than a year. I think the neighborhood guiding is more appropriate and fits the neighboring properties. The zoning will go with the property, regardless of the development. If this projec t doesn’t happen, another could come and would meet the zoning regulation. Reduction in parking can negatively impact the residents but also the surrounding properties, I’m not in favor of reducing parking. I support RJ’s recommendation that the ROW dedication for the round about occur. Regarding this particular proposal, the driveway location for the parking ramp is on the curve on Golden Valley Road, the visibility is limited. Janet Frisch City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 6 7930 Golden Valley Road I’m an original owner, I’ve been living in this unit for 21 years. My concerns are with the road. Staff mentioned the speed issue, and I am wondering where the applicant’s suggested expansion of the road will occur. When we exit from Wesley Commons to Golden Valley Road we have limited visibilit y around the curve. We were told our condo insurance rates are higher due to the rate of risk with that curve and decrease in visibility. I would like that to be considered as the plans are drawn up and changes are made. Kathy Waldhauser 3220 Orchard I favor the change in Land Use, I agree with original goals of the Comp Plan, and the details of this proposal will be worked on. Hopefully concerns can be addressed. I’m disappointed in how the site plan revolves around Wells Fargo. I understand negotiations had to occur but I’m disappointed the bank isn’t inside another building and is instead a free-standing building. I’m pleased this project will support mixed income housing goals. Ruth Paradise 8515 Duluth Street I support the change in zoning, I think the applicant’s proposal gives us a good idea of what can be done. I like the units of affordable housing and I like the retail and servicing options. My son lives in Vancouver and his Costco only has underground parking. I thought for a grocery store underground parking is good but not if it’s an infiltration problem. Change and transition is hard, a lot of work; lots of planning and community involvement went into both the Comp Plan and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Laurie Levin 240 Brunswick I support the discussion this evening, all three points. Change is hard but Golden Valley is changing for the future and provide more opportunities for folks to live in our City. I’m sure when design elements are discussed you’ll take neighboring input. Alicia Dybvig 7930 Golden Valley Road This spot is ripe for development so I think the location is right. Changing the zoning makes sense but I’m more in favor of Neighborhood Mixed use instead of Community. The latter seems to have more focus on the Mixed-Use and I’m wondering if Neighborhood Mixed -Use is better for that site. I also think the affordable housing is great. Jennifer Nyberg 8028 Golden Valley Road We are behind the shadows and for the purpose of our house we are against it, my concerns are filed. My son wanted to speak: The shadow will stop all of our plants, our trees, its already icy but the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 7 shadow will make it worse. Traffic is hectic, it’s loud at night, there isn’t a lot of parking but this will make it more hectic. There were no more in person commenters. Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak at 7:53pm. Ilze Berzins 8214 Golden Valley Road I agree this area should be redeveloped but I don’t think it needs to be this large. My understanding is that there’s a proposal for an apartment on 55 and Winnetka, is that happening? There are apartments to the west on 55 and what are those occupancy rates? My wish is that the building be 4 stories high. I didn’t understand the setback comments that if the building is closer to the sidewalk it’s more amenable to pedestrians. Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 8:00pm. Staff addressed questions. • The ROW expansion plan is not to move curbs, but acquire ROW on the Wells Fargo side so in the future there can be a bike trail. We don’t plan to modify the width of the road. • There isn’t a difference between the encouragement of the mixed uses between Ne ighborhood or Community Mixed Uses. • The only place during the 2022 traffic study where a round about was considered was at Wisconsin and Golden Valley Road. Staff would need to review the entire study to see if more are proposed. Ruby asked how residents can reach out to City staff to discuss traffic safety on the road. Staff mentioned Engineering has a Traffic Safety Committee and residents can get in touch with Planning Staff who will forward them on or they can reach out to Engineering. • The ramp exit on Golden Valley Road is a hard requirement from Engineering so it lines up with Bassett Creek Boulevard exit so intersections aren’t offset. Angles may be further addressed as well as vegetation options. • Regarding the Harold Winnetka rezoning, there are no proposals at the moment. The zoning change hasn’t been approved by council yet and there are no proposals now. • Regarding Hello and the Flourish, the former is a multi-family building but it filled up right away. The Flourish is a senior building that opened during Covid and they now met occupancy level. Our Comp Plan confirms we still need housing, senior housing, and affordable housing. • Buildings next to the curb feels tight but usually if there’s a parking lot distance between the sidewalk and the building, that impacts pedestrian accessibility. Mixed-Use attempts to right size that setback, 10-15ft from the curb. Commissioner Ginis stated being in favor of staff recommendations and there being opportunities later for tweaking details as they relate to resident comments on shadows and traffic. Thinking about City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 8 the Comp Plan and the Downtown Plan, the efforts in this site make the most sense. The increase in density will continue to strengthen downtown options and amenities. It’s really important to connect the bike lane from Luce Line to this area. This site is also connected to multiple main bus routes and density in this area will support long term transit. Commissioner Brenna echoed what Ginis said and reiterated the goals in both the Comp Plan and the Downtown Plan. The change in zoning allows the lot to reduce the amount of pavement by 20% and that’s huge. The stormwater improvements as suggested by the applicant are huge. Commissioner Ruby echoed the previous two comments but added he questions the size of the lot for Wells Fargo. Community safety around traffic and traffic speed is important and we need to factor those concerns in. Additionally, the amount of shading is a concern and I appr eciate the developer wanting to work with the community. Commissioner Segelbaum added he’s in favor and stated that there could be many options for this site by right but that the applicant is the builder and the manager is huge. Their investment is long term and that’s desirable. The plans have room for discussion and I look forward to them. Community concerns on safety and traffic are important and we have a Council Member here who heard them as well. Chair Brookins noted that when he looks at what could be built by right, he initially didn’t think the area was a good fit. This project however considers a lot of factors, reduced what’s allowed in height, and fits with the recommendation for the Downtown Study. Looking at what could be there, this is a great alternative but I do have concerns for what is generally allowed in case this project falls through. Can we tie the rezoning to the plan? Staff responded that any proposal has to go through engineering, traffic has to work, zoning setbacks are in place, stormwater has to work, there are checkpoints that need to be evaluated regardless. Even this site plan will come back before this body for review. MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Ginis, to recommend approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the guided land use for 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden Valley Drive from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Community Mixed Use. MOTION CARRIED MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to recommend approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning for 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden Valley Drive from Commercial to Community Mixed Use (MU-C). MOTION CARRIED MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Ginis, to recommend of the proposed minor platting action, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate the planned cul-de-sac on Golden Valley Drive. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm 9 2. The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate if any additional modifications to the final plat are required in order to accommodate a future mini roundabout at the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road. 3. A park dedication fee equal to 6% of the land value shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat. 4. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. Discussion: Commissioner Segelbaum asked if a 5th condition could be added connecting it to the site plan. Staff responded that tying a plan to property lines can’t occur. MOTION CARRIED – End of Televised Portion of Meeting – 6. Planning Commission 2022 Annual Report and 2023 Work Plan 7. Board of Zoning Appeals 2022 Annual Report 8. Council Liaison Report 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Ruby to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:01pm. ________________________________ ________________________________ Secretary, Sofia Ginis Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant         REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,  participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the  public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it  on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.     1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Brookins.     Roll Call  Commissioners present: E. Brenna, A. Brookins, S. Ginis, L. Pockl, M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum   Commissioners absent:   Staff present:     Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner  Council Liaison:   Denise La Mere‐Anderson    2. Land Acknowledgement    3. Approval of Agenda  MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the  agenda of March 13, 2023 and move the discussion items to the untelevised portion of the meeting.   MOTION CARRIED    4. Discussion – Off Street Parking  Myles Campbell, Planner, started with a summary of the item and while this discussion has been in  process, tonight’s discussion is about Electric Vehicle (EV) Requirements. Staff received comments  from the Environmental Commission which included:    Including EV class is important, even if it means updating in the future if standards change  o Class 2 is required for a number of grant opportunities  o Class 3 could be a major value in commercial areas   Emphasize greenspace and vegetation   Incentivize permeable pavements   Options for solar/wind   No comments on minimum/maximum parking    Staff went on to discuss other city codes, building code requirements, surface parking requirements,  and staff compared Level 1, 2, and 3 chargers.     March 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid    City of Golden Valley     Planning Commission Regular Meeting  March 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm       2  Staff recommends level 2 and 3 chargers for surface parking and a larger lot could lead to a  proportionally greater number of chargers required. Staff added a consideration for a parking  reduction or other incentive for EV chargers in structures or underground parking.     Staff reviewed existing green space requirements surrounding parking and discussed items for  potential review. Staff went on to discuss permeable pavers as a way to decrease hard cover and  Planning staff would work with Engineering staff to explore this option further.     Staff had recommendations to emphasize use of trees and plantings, to ensure that landscaped areas  remain permeable, to consolidate buffer language into landscaping requirements, focus on  boundaries between properties rather than streets, and explore permeable pavers in a way that  doesn’t create new impervious surface issues. They also asked if there was a potential for solar/wind.    Commissioner Ruby mentioned parking space requirements and added to the discussion ensuring  the requirements don’t negatively impact other vehicle/resident needs. Staff discussed surface lots,  structured parking, and incentivizing solar.   Commissioner Brenna agreed that level 2&3 are ideal and asked about code requirement changes  for landscaping. Staff stated that language around landscaping would be amended for off street  parking. Brenna added that current language seems to lead to landscaping as a screening goal and  it’s not related to stormwater. Staff confirmed.   Commissioner Segelbaum asked how common level 3 EV sites are. Staff responded that level 3 are  direct current chargers and thus faster. Staff reviewed presentation slides and discussed price  differences and charger standards.   Chair Pockl pointed out comments from Environmental Commission, the evolution chargers, and  keeping an open mind for voltage so code isn’t changing every year or so. Pockl added comments on  types or chargers at types of parking lots and what the need is for the area.     The conversation went on to discuss other city codes and using Saint Louis Park code as a jumping  point for Golden Valley.    Commissioner Brookins mentioned chargers with voltage per hour availability which could  incentivize level 3. Ruby mentioned apartment complexes where folks park overnight, there may be  less incentive for level 3 chargers.  Staff discussed that more and discovering types of use in certain  areas would be helpful. The discussion moved to seeing EV chargers more often in multi‐family  housing areas, it can be an incentive. Staff and Commissioners discussed rules around parking,  parking minimums AND maximums, restrictions, users, and accessibility parking within EV parking  spots.     The discussion moved on about permeable pavers, screening, landscaping buffers, site plan  requirements, permits required, and process.         City of Golden Valley     Planning Commission Regular Meeting  March 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm       3  5. Discussion – THC Legislation  Myles Campbell, Planner, started by discussing HF 100 which was introduced to the MN Legislature.  This bill would make recreational cannabis use legal, further define cannabis related industries and  state regulations. The history of this topic goes back to 2014 when the Legislature put together a bill  establishing legality and standards for Medical Marijuana.    The proposed legislation is more complex compared to the “shadow” approval of some edibles in  2021. This would establish state level oversight office and advisory council. The oversight office  would handle regulation and licensing of cannabis businesses throughout the state, along with  statute enforcement. This proposal also sets standards for cannabis businesses in areas such as: food  safety, environmental standards, operational regulation, advertising, sales, etc.  It also establishes a  state level “gross receipts” sales tax and included is the expungement of some prior drug offences +  grant opportunities targeted at equitable outcomes.     Proposed Legislation – Local Controls   Local Government cannot prohibit use/transportation/possession of cannabis products, and  cannot prohibit establishment or operation of a licensed cannabis business   Local Government can set reasonable restrictions on time, manner, place of cannabis  businesses  o Can also set a proximity restriction of up to 1,000 feet from schools, day care, nursing  home, union headquarters, house of worship, or Capitol Grounds (later amended to  include parks and playgrounds)   Local Government can set an interim ordinance prohibiting businesses till 2025, but need to  have an ongoing study on the topic (moratorium)   Requirements also set up for Local Government to be timely in responding to potential  cannabis businesses on local requirements (what approvals or permits may be required, etc.)    Staff’s initial consideration:    Substantial changes at the state level, will likely mean some revision to local zoning code.    THC retailers were added to code last year, but all other business types likely fall under more  generalized land use categories   Licensing, which was a big concern last year in order to ensure oversight, now shifts to the  state’s responsibility   Overall much more in statute controlling food and environmental standards means less  ambiguity for local governments like GV    Staff reviewed existing code, land use, and relevant cannabis license holder use. New production and  cultivation use would fall into general land use categories without a code amendment. Given the  number of different cooking/manufacturing categories, a new cannabis focused category could  simplify decision‐making on what use applies. Currently, greenhouses are permitted uses in  industrial, the City could consider a new cannabis cultivation use if it desires more control. Trying to  City of Golden Valley     Planning Commission Regular Meeting  March 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm       4  prohibit a use in effect could be challenged in court further down the road, for example assigning a  permitted zoning district but then using restrictions to eliminate any possible land in that district.    Staff is asking for questions in the statute and seeking direction from the Planning Commission.    Commissioner Ginis stated that the sale of marijuana/related products and the  growing/creation/distribution/manufacturing should be treated separately. Erecting greenhouses  won’t attract crime but it will attract business. Regarding retail sales, utilizing previous restrictions  would be beneficial. Keeping the code distinction clear and concise will only help clarity.  Commissioner Ruby stated that the local government can state their regulations now and doesn’t  have to wait to see what other cites do before Golden Valley acts. Staff stated that many use areas,  (non‐smoking areas) will have THC use rolled into those current regulations. Commissioner  Segelbaum asked for input from Council on if the Commission should treat this regulation like alcohol  and tobacco or if it should be an entity on its own. Tobacco sales are restricted to 8 licenses in the  City and this current THC information eludes to those restrictions not being allowed. Segelbaum  added that blanket prohibition seems to not be allowed, but a denying a CUP isn’t a prohibition. Staff  affirmed.   The discussion moved on to the intricacies of each zoning designation, conditional uses or not, and  then if those regulations apply to all or some uses. The number of categories seems excessive but as  staff narrows specific uses to certain zoning areas, that will be workable for staff and businesses.  Commissioner Brookins added he’s not opposed to implementing a lot of extra code but rather  creating a category and treat the businesses based on where they fit in the category/zoning.     Chair Pockl added there’s benefit to looking at definitions included in the legislation and creating  categories based on that language. There should be consideration when regulating THC like tobacco  since tobacco is a dying industry. Regulations should be consistent with those that are happening or  could, not ones that may be null. The conversation revolved around legalization, businesses,  categories, and other first ring cities of larger metropolitan cities.     – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –    6. Council Liaison Report    7. Other Business    8. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Ruby to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum and  approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:01pm.                                                                                                          ________________________________      ________________________________                 Secretary, Sofia Ginis        Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant  1 Date: March 27, 2023 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: Informal Hearing – PUD No. 91 Amendment #5 Applicant: Chris Hong, Landform Property owner: The Luther Company LLLP Zoning District: Commercial PUD size: 13.11 acres Current use: Auto Dealerships & Services Future land use: Commercial Adjacent uses: Interstate 394(north), Westwood Hills Nature Center (south), Carousel Auto Group (west), MetroTransit Park and Ride (east) 2021 aerial photo (Hennepin County) v v 2 Summary The Luther Company is pursuing modifications to its existing PUD in the southwest corner of the City with Amendment #5 to PUD 91. The most notable changes being proposed are the addition of a new Genesis dealership building between the existing Toyota and Jaguar/Land Rover dealership buildings. In addition, Luther also seeks to build a new aboveground parking structure in the northeast corner of the property, helping to offset the loss of surface parking with the new dealership and additional spaces for inventory storage. The two new structures are highlighted below in blue. Background PUD 91 was created in May 2001, establishing the east portion of the site as the new location for a Luther Toyota dealership. Full-scale redevelopment of the two properties however did not begin until Amendment #1 to the PUD in 2005, which notably included updated site plans showing a second dealership building on the west lot, that would eventually become the Jaguar/Land Rover location. Following the first amendment, construction on the revised Toyota dealership began with the Jaguar dealership following soon after. In September 2007, Amendment #2 was approved by the City Council. Unlike the previous major amendment, this action was considered minor, as it only added a new car wash use and an addition to the existing Toyota Dealership building. Amendment #3 in 2015 was another Minor Amendment and approved a 2,380 square foot addition, this time to the Jaguar/Land Rover building. The addition, on the east side of the building, would have allowed for a covered area for new car deliveries. This approval was ultimately not acted on by the property owner. 3 Amendment #4 was approved in June 2018. Considered a Major Amendment, it again was focused on a new building addition to the Jaguar Land Rover dealership. The amendment allowed for 5,000 square feet of new vehicle showroom space and revised the parking plan with respect to outdoor display. The amendment also compensated for increasing the hardcover related to the showroom and parking by removing display spaces along the west property line and converting that area back to green space, decreasing the amount of impervious surface. Existing Conditions PUD 91 is comprised of two lots. 8805 Wayzata Blvd (east lot) is 7.98 acres and is currently zoned Commercial. The Luther Toyota dealership is 34’3” in height at its highest point, and has a total floor area of 56,925 sq. ft. 8905 Wayzata Blvd (west lot) is 5.13 acres and similarly zoned Commercial. The Jaguar Land Rover dealership is 30’ in height at its highest point, and has a total floor area of 46,163 sq. ft. The site has a total of 1,027 parking spaces today, the majority of which are for display or inventory purposes. The current level of impervious coverage over both lots is 88.5%, with the west lot currently having a slightly better proportion at 87.1%. Since the original PUD approval, the site’s landscaping has been adjusted in previous amendments, and will similarly see modification with this amendment. The site has a few points of access, with three curb cuts along Wayzata Blvd, and one off of General Mills Blvd. Vehicle maneuvering diagrams are included along with this memo which demonstrate the planned movements of delivery and emergency vehicles through the site. Proposal Luther is seeking to add an additional dealership to the east lot. The new building would be located centrally in the PUD and would fall on the internal lot line between 88085 and 8905 Wayzata. The building would be 22,500 sq. ft. in area and 25’ in height, making it the smallest of the three principal structures in the PUD. Rendering of Proposed Genesis Building, view from Wayzata Blvd 4 With respect to the new dealership, the following flexibilities from zoning code would be necessitated by the proposed design: • Secondary Principal Structure – In the Commercial Zoning District, only one principal dwelling is allowed per lot. Introducing the second dealership building on 8805 Wayzata would require this zoning requirement to be waived outright. • Side Setback for Principal Structure –Under Commercial zoning, code calls for a 20-foot setback from an internal side property line. In the proposed plans, the new Genesis dealership would be located on the west property line of 8805 Wayzata Blvd. • Parking External Landscaping – The new building location would necessitate pushing an existing drive aisle and parking closer to the south property line along Wayzata, bringing the landscaped portion to roughly be in line with that in front of the Toyota dealership to the east. The second major component of Amendment #5 is the proposed aboveground parking structure. The structure would serve as additional inventory storage for the Toyota dealership, and would have a total of 411 parking spaces as designed. This structure would become the tallest on-site at 49’3” or 5 stories. The total floor area for the new parking structure would be 30,350 sq. ft. Notably, the applicant plans to preserve the existing mature trees along General Mills Blvd and add additional landscaping to help offset the size/massing of the new structure. Rendering of Proposed Parking Structure, view from General Mills Blvd This parking structure would require the following flexibility from Zoning Code: • Accessory Structure Size– Commercial Zoning allows 3-story parking structures when used to meet minimum parking requirements, but otherwise limits accessory buildings to 1 story in height. The proposed structure would be a total of 5-stories. Accessory structures are also typically limited to 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the proposed structure would be 30,350 sq. ft. • Accessory Structure Location – Commercial Zoning requires a setback of 35 feet from any property along a public street. In the proposed plan the new parking structure would be 15 feet at its closest point to the property line along General Mills Blvd. 5 • Building Material Requirements – The Architectural and Material Standards chapter of Zoning Code does not currently differentiate between principal and accessory structures. While a percentage breakdown of materials in the ramp are not provided, it appears to be primarily made up of precast concrete, a Class II material. If standards were applied, 50% of the facades facing the street would need to be Class I material. In addition to these most visible/impactful changes to the site, the amendment also includes some other changes. For one, the new parking ramp will allow a portion of existing surface parking on the 8805 lot to be converted back into greenspace. Pervious surface across both lots is increasing by 2,091 sq. ft., bringing the percent of impervious surface to 88.1% overall. New landscaping is also proposed both along Wayzata Blvd in front of the new Genesis dealership (although with the removal of some existing mature trees) and around the new parking garage on the east façade. One remaining area where PUD flexibility would need to be applied is in regards to signage. The proposed dealership would add new signage in the form of: • 2x parking garage wall signs (37.5 sq. ft. each) • Genesis wall sign on new dealer (55.31 sq. ft.) • Genesis monument sign (29.5 sq. ft.) • Genesis Pylon Sign (77 sq. ft.) In addition to new sign square footage, the new pylon sign would 50’ in height, whereas sign code typically restricts to 25’ in height. Evaluation Land Use and Zoning Considerations As with any PUD where the City offers flexibility in exchanged for an improved or more efficient site plan, or in order to encourage other public benefits, staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the standard requirements of the Commercial zoning district in which it is located. Dimensional Requirements For the new Genesis location, the only dimensional flexibility requested is in regard to the internal shared property line between 8805 and 8905 Wayzata. The new building would be located on this property line, on the 8805 side. In most cases staff would not typically support a zero lot line structure, given that the area is typically reserved for landscaping and to provide sufficient space from other private properties. Here however, the fact that all properties involved are held by Luther, and operate under the same PUD and with shared parking facilities staff has very few reservations. Despite the internal lot line, the site feels like one master planned location, which it is under the PUD. The new building is located such that it still allows sufficient area for both customers and larger commercial vehicles to navigate the site. The applicant notes in their project narrative that cross access agreements between the two lots will be put in place to ensure that access between lots in the future. 6 For the parking ramp, staff is comfortable with the reduced setback given the focus on green space to the north and east of the new parking ramp, and given the need to maintain a drive aisle between it and the Toyota dealership building. Its height and size overall are obviously well above the Commercial district limits for accessory structures, and even above the 3-story option for parking structures used to meet parking minimums. Staff is supportive overall; utilizing a parking structure makes sense here to reintroduce green space and as a way to avoid leasing or purchasing land elsewhere in the city for vehicle inventories. That said, Planning Commission or Council could consider further conditions on the structure, such as public art or additional landscaping, if they feel the visual impact is not being mitigated enough by the current plans. Architectural and Material Standards The City has established minimum requirements for exterior materials by zoning district. In the Commercial district, the following standards apply: Front façades, side and rear façades not visible from the public ROW: at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. Side and rear façades not visible from the public ROW: at least 40% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. Each façade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. Windows and door openings must comprise at least 60% of the length of the front façade and 30% of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Windows and door openings must comprise at least 20% of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades. The applicant did not provide a percentage breakdown of materials for the new dealership although staff will note that based on the provided elevations and material types the dealership will likely meet these standards. Significant glazing is provided on all faces of the structure, which is considered a Class I material itself. As a condition of approval staff is recommending a full materials breakdown be provided prior to City Council consideration. As noted in the previous section on the proposal, the parking ramp would fail to meet the architectural and material standards for the commercial zoning district. That said, staff feels that these standards are somewhat unrealistic to be applied to most parking structures, which have their own structural design requirements. The proposed parking ramp would principally be constructed from precast concrete. Staff feels that if Commission or Council seek to introduce more visual interest or ways to break up the visual impact of the large structure, other options like landscaping or public art are better solutions than material standards. Impervious Coverage While the Zoning Chapter does not limit the amount of impervious surfaces on a Commercially- zoned lot, the applicant notes that with the proposed amendment the amount would drop slightly by approximately 2,091 sq. ft. this is due to the new structures on the lot (dealership and ramp) being located on areas that were already dominated by surface parking, resulting in no loss of pervious surface, and due to the parking ramp being more efficient as a means of storing 7 vehicles compared to the surface parking it replaces, leaving more space for expanded green space in the northeast corner of the PUD. Buildings per Lot Commercial Zoning restricts parcels to a single principal structure. In the case of the proposed new dealership (and practically also the parking ramp), staff is open to the idea of adding a second principal structure to 8805 Wayzata, so long as it does not impact the functionality and traffic circulation of the rest of the lot. Here the new building is replacing existing surface parking, meaning that green space is not being further reduced by the addition of a second dealership. Also, it is beneficial in staff’s eyes to cluster these types of auto developments where feasible. Auto dealerships are typically an inefficient use of commercial land, given that a large portion of a parcel must be dedicated to outdoor display and inventory storage. To the extent that this development densifies the site by adding another dealer and additional inventory storage, this reduces the demand for sites elsewhere in the city. Traffic and Circulation In their review of the plans, Engineering staff noted that a number of the internal maneuvers shown for delivery vehicles are quite tight, requiring a high degree of difficulty to navigate and leaving very small margins for errors. The applicant has begun revising the plan in certain areas to make improvements based on staff comments, however concerns remain. While City is not concerned about damage to internal curbs or parked vehicle inventories, at other locations in the past, difficult internal circulation has caused drivers to park and unload within city streets and ROW, presenting a significant safety issue for other drivers. Engineering would like to see further corrections made to address turning movements on the property. Staff’s first preference would be to see one or more of the entrances along Wayzata realigned to straighten out movements on the site. At a minimum, revisions to some islands and parking areas are needed to provide more breathing room for drivers. With corrections, their comfort with the proposal would increase dramatically, as easier movements within the site will help to dissuade illegal use of the ROW for inventory unloading. Circulation plans otherwise note that all portions of the site would be accessible for the City’s fire emergency vehicles. 8 Signage Overall staff is comfortable with the new proposed signage. It is consistent with what has previously been approved at both the Toyota and Jaguar Land Rover dealers, and also is similar to previous auto dealer PUDS, that looked to apply sign code standards based on their larger master planned lot. The most significant outlier from code would be the new pylon sign located behind the new Genesis dealership. At 50’ in height this is significantly more than the 25’ allowed by code. However, this is due to the topography of the lot and the intended audience of the sign being vehicles on Interstate 394. The area in which the sign would be located is at a rough elevation of 894’ whereas the interstate roadway is roughly at an elevation of 916’. 50’ is roughly in line with the existing Jaguar/Land Rover pylon sign which is 48’ in height. Landscaping Environmental staff is supportive of plans to maintain mature trees along General Mills Blvd, however noted that the landscape plan submitted did not include a full inventory of existing trees or a list of trees planned for removal (such as along Wayzata in front of the new dealership). The landscaping plans do however show a good amount of reinvestment along both major public streets in landscaping. Environmental staff support these efforts, but would like to have a better understanding of existing trees in order to account for their replacement, and in order to match the PUD’s approved landscaping. Stormwater The applicant plans to handle stormwater largely as it has been in the past, through the MnDOT owned pond directly to the east. A new underground detention tank in the area of the new dealership is planned, and would include filtering prior to being routed to the pond. Given the degree of earthwork, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission would review plans prior to construction. Environmental Staff at the City will also consult with BCWMC to ensure the plan for stormwater management is satisfactory to both parties. A portion of the report provided by the applicant is available to the Commissioners as part of the packet. Fire Safety Considerations The Fire Department reviewed this proposal for adequate emergency access and public safety requirements. As noted, the site provided good access for emergency vehicles to all buildings. They did note however that they would like to see the applicant plan more for electric vehicle batteries in their plans given that the site is now showing chargers for electric vehicle inventory. Anticipated Development Timeline Ground breaking for this project is proposed for Spring of 2023, with the dealership anticipated to be complete in winter 2023, and the parking ramp following in spring 2024. 9 Findings In order approve an amendment to a PUD, the City must be able to make certain findings as outlined in Section 113-123, Subd. (c)(2) of the City Code. These findings, along with staff responses, are listed below: Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieve a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the zoning chapter. The PUD amendment furthers the goals of the original site plan, which were to provide for auto dealer uses in a clustered location. With further revisions to address truck movements, staff would feel more comfortable about safe traffic circulation. The plan also improves upon the provision of greenspace on the site. Preservation. The PUD plan must preserve and protect substantial desirable portions of the site’s characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. The amendment increases the amount of pervious space and utilizes existing impervious surface areas for its new building additions. The plan also seeks to maintain some of the mature trees on site along General Mills Blvd despite new construction in the area. Efficient and Effective. The PUD plan must include efficient and effective use of the land (which includes preservation). The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by clustering automotive dealership uses within the City, and by utilizing structured parking to more densely store inventory vehicles. This avoids the need to purchase or lease surface parking elsewhere in the city. Consistency. The PUD plan must result in development that is compatible with adjacent uses and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The proposal is consistent with the current use of the existing PUD and there are no known impacts to the surrounding properties. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the support of non-residential growth opportunities, and support for existing businesses and job providers. General Health. The PUD plan must be consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety, and welfare of the people of the city. The PUD amendment would improve general health, safety, and welfare by increasing pervious surface on-site, and utilizing its existing land efficiently. While further revision to accommodate 10 delivery vehicles is required, this should eliminate any staff concerns regarding impacts to public right-of-way. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan must meet the intent and purpose provisions of Section 113-123 as well as all other provisions. The PUD amendment meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code in that it achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials while remaining compatible with the land uses on-site and with surrounding properties. Recommendation Based on review of the materials submitted and the findings above, staff recommends approval of Amendment #5 to RLT Second Addition PUD No. 91, subject to the following conditions: 1. Site Plan revisions to address traffic turning movements are made prior to adoption of the amendment by City Council, to the satisfaction of City Engineering staff. 2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street. 3. Applicant shall submit a signage plan including the location, dimensions, and design of all signage across the PUD, to be referenced in the amended PUD permit. 4. Applicant shall work with staff from the Golden Valley Fire Department to develop a plan for safe handling and storage of lithium vehicle batteries. 5. An inventory of existing tress and planned removals should be added to the landscape plan for the amendment. 6. A building materials schedule shall be provided prior to Council consideration of the PUD. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development.