Loading...
2025-06-23 MIN PC Regular Meeting-DraftCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Acting Chair Cohen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss, David Hill, Mike Ruby • Regular Members Absent: None • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner Sam Barens, Planning Intern • Council Member Present: None 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Segelbaum noted that 2.C. should be updated to remove the position of Secretary from the Commission and update the wording for when both the Chair and Vice Chair are absent from the meeting to say: Officers may delegate the duties of their positions to other commissioners as deemed appropriate by the commission. Cohen noted that 2.H. is a land acquisition for a public works facility, and as a member of the task force, he added that the current public works facility is outdated, too small, and not up to date for employee work. 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of May 12, 2025, meeting minutes 2.C. Update to Planning Commission Bylaws 2.D. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-002 Certifying Land Conveyance of 504 Lilac Drive North is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.E. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-003 Certifying Land Conveyance of 4707 Circle Down is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.F. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-004 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1211 Lilac Drive is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.G. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-005 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1611 Lilac Drive is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.H. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-006 Certifying Land Conveyance of 6100 Olson Memorial Highway is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan • Cohen asked for a motion to approve. • Segelbaum moved to approve with the edits as outlined. • Hill seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Major Amendment for 9000 Plymouth Avenue North • Kramer presented the proposal. • Cohen asked if there were any questions for the staff. • Segelbaum noted that in the neighborhood meeting, there was a question about landscaping and maintaining a visual screen. He asked if staff could show what the neighbor was referring to and anything that could be pointed out in the proposal that highlights the landscaping. • Kramer shared a visual of the proposed landscape plan that the applicant is proposing, which CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 has as much screening as possible. She also shared the tree removal plan, which would have to take place for the turnaround and the underground utilities tunnel to take place. She noted that the Staff is also working with the applicant for additional tree replacement on the site or in the nature area of the site. • Segelbaum asked if the applicant is subject to the tree mitigation plan requirements the City has in place, given that it is a PUD Amendment. • Kramer stated that the applicant is subject to the same tree mitigation policy, and the Staff has already been in discussion with the applicant about their plans. The applicant will have to apply for a tree inventory and landscape plan along with their building permits, which would happen after City Council approval. • Segelbaum asked if there were any trees removed recently that would be included in the policy. • Kramer noted that there is a look-back policy, which is included with the tree mitigation policy, so if there were any trees removed recently, those would have to be replaced as well. Staff can look back at past plans and see what it has looked like to get back to the one-to-one ratio of trees. • Sicotte asked if the x’s on the plans that indicate trees that would be removed are any trees or just trees above the caliper size and type that is required to be replaced. He noted that the number of x’s seemed to be greater than that which was being replaced. • Kramer stated that she was unsure but asked the applicant for clarification. • Senior Manager of Global Real Estate, General Mills, Jordan Weigelt, spoke. • Weigelt stated that the plan for the trees needs to be further developed and that it will happen as they apply for the permit. He noted that it is important to look at the entire campus and see that in the North 40, which is open to the community, there are probably 3,000-plus trees, but more work needs to be done to get the one-to-one ratio that is needed. • Kramer noted that she would try to look up if the plans were showing all the trees being removed or just the ones that would have to be included in the tree replacement process. • Sicotte noted that sometimes, when a survey is done, they do not even draw the trees that are below a certain caliper. • General Mills Architect and Project Manager, Mamie Harvey, spoke. • Harvey noted that the General Mills landscape architect has been working with the City Staff to go through and identify the trees that need to be replaced, and there are several trees that General Mills understands need to be replaced on campus. • Hill asked if there is a timing on replacing the trees; he thought this was a resident issue that had been raised. • Kramer stated that this was in an email from a resident, which asked in what phase the trees would be replaced and when the screening would grow back in. • Harvey stated that the area where the trees would be removed is the area being used for the construction site, so with the building construction starting in the spring, it would be the following spring when the trees would be replanted. • Sicotte asked about the grading that would be taking place in the north part of the property, and where the soil would be coming from, specifically. • Harvey noted that the tunnel is fairly deep, so they need to figure out what to do with the soil, which they have been working with the excavator and will probably add to the stockpile in the North 40. • Kramer added that in the plans, none of the trees in the North 40 would be impacted, and the area where the excess soil would go has been used in previous projects. • Harvey noted that there is a Class 5 pile out in the North 40. • Segelbaum asked about the standards and requirements that a PUD has over time, especially CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 with this property having been around for a long amount of time, and many changes can occur. • Kramer asked if he was talking about amending the plans. • Segelbaum clarified that he was curious how applicants are held to their plans. If there is a screening that was in the plans 20 years ago, does the screening need to still be there today, or is the applicant able to have some change over time. • Kramer stated that, depending on the scale of the change, the plans would have to be updated somehow, which may just be an administrative approval by the Staff. It might be a minor PUD amendment, which is reviewed by Staff and then goes directly City Council with the Planning Commission. Or, like in this case, there is a Major PUD Amendment, which is the same process as a new PUD: neighborhood meeting, public hearing, and then the Council. She noted that in general, the City will have any updates to the plans for PUDs and will update the plans as needed. • Segelbaum asked if there was any administrative or formal action that called out the change in that location adjacent to Boone Avenue. • Kramer stated that the Staff started looking into it, and that there was a right-of-way permit that they are working with City Engineering to look closely at. The question in the email specifically talked about screening along Boone Avenue being removed, and this was to install several electric poles, so there was no way to put the trees back, but there may be other types of screening that could be used. She noted that the Staff is working with the applicant to get additional screening in this area, because of the concern that has been raised. • Cohen asked if there were further questions. He then invited the applicant to come forward to speak. • Weigelt thanked the Commission for considering them and for the ongoing work with them. He noted that this expansion is really exciting for General Mills because it is for the pet food side of things, and it will allow the scientists to keep innovating in a safe and flexible environment. He noted that the square footage is closer to 40,000 square feet. • General Mills Senior Project Manager Austin Kreiser spoke. • Kreiser stated that they were there to answer any questions that anyone may have. • Cohen asked the applicant to go over some of the items that were highlighted for the neighborhood meeting, such as the plans for the building, the number of employees it might utilize, just a general overview of the plans. • Harvey stated the North entrance would stay the same, and that the new floors will only be technical space, meaning no additional office space will be added, with no population being added. She noted that the biggest change is the ring road, which will no longer go around the building. She added that General Mills is investing in this campus by putting an underground tunnel that could be used for expansion in the future. She stated that the building does not have windows, but that it will be a brick building that will feel like the rest of the campus. General Mills is focused on the sustainability of the building and the flexibility this building will bring to the future of the company. She spoke at the three phases: first is the site and the utilities, second is reinvesting in accessible restrooms adjacent to this facility, and third is the building itself. • Cohen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. • Segelbaum asked if the applicant could add anything to the discussion of the screening and past promises of screening that did not happen. • Harvey noted that the process has brought to light some information from the neighbor’s perspective, which General Mills will want to take this information and try to alleviate some of the strain that the neighbors are feeling. She noted that more communication about the technical parts of the right-of-way that was put in may be of benefit to the neighbors. She CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 added that when General Mills does these projects, they look at the zoning requirements and make sure that the plans meet the goals of the City and the County as well as their own. • Segelbaum asked if General Mills has had a chance to look at this area where the right-of-way came in and thought about how to screen differently to fix the problem that community members are bringing up. • Harvey noted that with the email coming in today, they have not had time to discuss this as of yet. • Kreiser noted that he did see the email, and he was part of the power project that took place in the area under discussion. He added that this is where the main power comes into the facility and that they want to be very cognizant of the neighbors, but they are not able to while staying within the code, and the poles are 30 feet tall. He referred to a picture that the project will be well shielded from the neighbors around by much of the screening that is already in place. He stated that, as a food manufacturer, it is difficult to have a lot of vegetation close by because it brings in the birds and pests, so they are trying to balance the number of trees and the landscape plan while trying to keep things as far away from the building as possible. • Segelbaum noted that he would like to see that they at least examine the possibility of adding to the vegetation in the area. • Van Oss noted that they are not asking for any deviations from the code in terms of mitigation. He added that the email in question was not germane to the application because the PUD is not for the whole site but for a specific location, and the applicant is within code to that. • Kramer added that the email is talking about an area outside of this project, but that the entire campus is part of the PUD. So, they have to look at the whole campus as part of the project. She added that the Planning Commission can make recommendations or conditions of approval, such as applicant will continue to work with the Staff on additional screening opportunities. • Van Oss stated that if screening was an issue at large for the applicant, the Staff would bring this to the Planning Commission as something to consider. • Kramer stated that the Staff is not seeing an at-large screening issue. • Cohen asked about the area where they would take down the trees for staging, if the tree take down would happen early, and if the trees would not be put back up until late 2027. • Kreiser noted that the demolition of some trees would happen early in phase one, and then the plan would be for the replacement of the landscaping to happen in phase three of the project • Cohen asked about the employees and if all 600 of them were there all the time, and if there could be any traffic concerns because of the construction. • Kreiser stated that in meetings, the neighbors were complimentary of what they had done. He said that the employees work on shifts, and this expansion does not add any headcount, just more square footage. The construction should not have an impact on traffic because they are not changing anything from the way it is currently. • Cohen asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. • Cohen opened the public hearing. • Resident Tyler Gruenwald, 1316 Gettysburg Ave, spoke. • Gruenwald stated that his concern was with the addition of exterior lighting and the impact that it could have on some neighbors. He stated that it would not impact him, but the lights on the west side are shining right into his house now, so it would be something that they should at least consider. • Ruby asked if the Staff would like to respond to relevant questions. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer noted that the applicant has submitted a lighting plan, and that they would have to meet the lighting requirement, such as minimizing spill over onto neighboring properties, just like any other application. • Ruby asked if it would just cover new or the existing as well. • Kramer stated that the plan just covers the new lighting, but that they could also take a look at the west side lighting, since a concern was raised. • Cohen closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Cohen stated he had not been to the site until recently; however, he was struck by three things: it is huge, General Mills has been a good neighbor for Golden Valley, and it brings in a high population during the day. He added that he is supportive of the proposal. • Van Oss stated that he feels it is a great project, and that he hopes to see more of it in the future with the larger employees, as it will help to expand the City. • Segelbaum stated that he agreed with what has been said, and that General Mills has been great for the community, and that he appreciates that they continue to reinvest in the community. He feels that the plan looks great, but that with a neighbor raising some concerns, it would be good for General Mills to look at the screening of the property, since they have done a nice job thus far. • Sicotte noted that he is very familiar with the area, and his only concern is that the tree removal plan is not being met with the new trees. He feels this may be due to the types of trees being removed, but he hopes that this was being thought about and is very supportive of the project. • Hill stated he felt that some of the concerns that were addressed were outside the project itself, but that the applicant could think about them and look at the concerns. He feels that the project is solid. • Cohen asked if there were any other questions or comments. He then asked for a motion. • Segelbaum made the motion to recommend approval of the major PUD amendment based on staff findings. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Van Oss asked about the policy on whether trees need to be replaced if they die. • Kramer stated that any tree that is shown in an approved PUD plan, if it dies, would have to be replaced. • Van Oss asked what the look-back period would be for that. • Kramer stated that she thought it was two years. 4. STAFF, COUNCIL LIAISON, AND COMMISSIONER UPDATES • Kramer stated that on May 20th, Council approved the application for 504 Lilac and 4707 Circle Down, and the final plats for the two applications will go to Council on July 1st. She thought that they would be done with the planning applications for those five properties. She added that the Commission approved tonight for certification of land acquisitions and/or conveyance for several properties, but probably would not hear much on those for a while. She noted that she would update when an agreement is reached with a developer or construction starts. • Kramer introduced the planning intern, Sam Barens, who would be with them for the summer. • Planning Intern Sam Barens stated that he would be interning for the summer with the planners. He is in the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of Minnesota. He is originally from Florida and has been here for a year, and has one more year left. He plans to present something to the Planning Commission. • Kramer stated that next month, he will be presenting to the Planning Commission. She added that they have seven interns this year, which has been helpful. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Cohen asked if there was a new schedule for the safety meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals. • Kramer stated that there was no date at this time, but that this week they may be able to put together a one-page flyer about general safety protocol for the room. • Cohen asked if the next meeting would be July 14th. • Kramer agreed and added that at the meeting, there would be two Conditional Use Permit applications. • Cohen asked if there was anything else to share. • Kramer stated there was not, but asked if there were any questions for the Staff. • Van Oss asked about the enhanced quiet hours that St. Louis Park has put in place for the train, and if the City is working with St. Louis Park or could work with them to do the same sort of thing. • Kramer stated that they have been talking about it in the office, and that she does not know the details of St. Louis Park’s ordinance, but that they could start working on it for the City. • Ruby asked where that would fall under. • Kramer stated that she thought if it were an ordinance that it would be under city code, but she is not for sure. She corrected to say that the City Engineer has started to work on this, but she was not sure if it would come before the Planning Commission; however, she would update either way. • Cohen asked if Councilmember Ginis had sent any updates to the Staff. • Kramer stated that she sent an email about the JFB project, noting that she has heard concerns about the buckthorn removal and maintenance of the trail in general, so it may come up at Council but because the PUD Amendment is not doing anything with that section, Council may or may not want to discuss it. • Cohen stated that if the Council wants to discuss buckthorn removal, they should hire goats. • Van Oss asked about who manages the wildlife in the park. • Kramer stated that she is unsure of who manages the wildlife. • Cohen asked if there are any Commissioner updates. • Segelbaum asked if there was a BZA meeting this month. • Kramer stated that there is a meeting in July. • Van Oss asked whose turn it is to attend. • Kramer stated she was not sure right now but would figure it out. The meeting is on July 22nd, and she will email the person when it is their month to go. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Acting Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.