04-09-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
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,
April 9, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Thase present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, Schmidgall,
Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Director af Planning and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner, Joe Hogeboom, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Engineer Mark Ray
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
March 15, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
M�VED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve
the March 15, 2012 minutes as submitted.
March 26, 2012 Regular Ptanning Commission Meeting
Kisch referred to the fourth paragraph on page three and stated that he would like the
sentence to be amended to read as follows: Kisch said he likes that the parking ordinance
established a lower minimum number of parking spaces.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the
March 26, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment— Final
Plan — 123 Ottawa Ave. N., Breck School — PU-88 Amendment#1
Applicant: Breck School
Address: 123 Ottawa Avenue North
Purpose: To allow a portion of the existing two-story building (the upper schoal)
to be demolished and replaced with a new four-stary building.
Hogeboom explained that the Preliminary Plan for Breck's proposed PUD amendment
was approved by the City Council in February. Breck has now submitted their Final PUD
proposal for City review which has not changed since the Preliminary Plan approval. He
gave an overview of the proposal and explained Breck's request to demolish and replace
their Upper School with a four-story building and a mechanical penthouse. He stated that
the building will be 70 feet tall at its highest point and that the parking and student
enrollment will remain at 120Q as approved by the existing PUD Permit.
Hogeboom stated that Breck has submitted a construction traffic plan which states that
construction vehicle traffic is to use Ottawa Avenue only, no constructian traffic may enter
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 2
the site from the northeast and construction workers are to enter and exit the site via Lilac
Drive. Breck is aiso proposing to increase CSO traffic patrol during the peak construction
hours.
Segelbaum said he knows that the City Council requested that Breck do a constructian
communication plan and asked if the Council gave Breck any additional guidance.
Hogeboom stated that Breck will be creating a Listserv in order to communicate to
subscribers bi-weekly starting in June. Breck will also host monthly meetings for
neighbors and will notify neighbors of specific work, (including Saturday construction) that
may impact them.
Segelbaum said he understands Breck is not proposing to increase their enrollment as
part of this proposal and questioned if they would need to go through another PUD
amendment process if they want to increase enrollment in the future. Hogeboom stated
that Breck's PUD permit allows them to have up to 1,200 students. If they want to
increase enrollment over 1,200 students they would need to go through the PUD
amendment process.
Kisch asked if an increase in enrollment would be a tri�ger requiring Breck to do a Traffic
Demand Management Plan. Hogeboom said yes. He stated that the original PUD
approval did not require a traffic plan however it does require Breck to work with the City
regarding traffic issues. He added that the Police Chief feels Breck is currently in
compliance with their traffic management practices.
Edward Kim, Headmaster at Breck, stated that the proposed project is a renovation of
their upper school which is almost 60 years old. He affirmed that they are not seeking an
increase in their enrallment. He stated that they have met with the neighborhood to
communicate their plans and his hope is that the traffic issues will be addressed through
Breck's continues efforts in working with the City.
Segelbaum asked if there are other phases of renovation planned at this point. Kim stated
that the site has never had a master plan. The idea is to have canstruction done in
several phases aver time. He stated that the other phases are conceptual at this time.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Barb Busick, 4736 Glenwood Avenue, suggested spreading the construction traffic out by
having the morning construction traffic use Ottawa and the afternaon traffic go sameplace
else. She stated that Ottawa is a short street with 10 children living there so it is full of
activity and the traffic scares a lot of the people who live there. She said the
communication from Breck has been awesome but she would like to see the notification
area increased to include mare people because the whole area is affected by the traffic.
She suggested that notification be sent to everyone south of Highway 55, west of
Theodore Wirth Parkway, north of I-394 and east of TH 100.
Paul Schneck, 122 Burntside Drive, said he is most concerned about how the height of
the buildings in all of the phases will affect the neighborhood. He said right now it looks
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 3
like a neighborhood with a school in it but he is worried it will look like a school with a
neighborhood in it. He said it sounds to him like this proposal has been gaing on for years
and he just found out about it. He is concerned about his view because he will be looking
at a 70-foot tall brick building. He said Breck could have done something different and
that making the building this tall was a choice. He said he is very concerned that the City
doesn't know about all the phases of construction and it doesn't make sense to only
consider this phase when we know more phases are coming in the future. He said he
needs to know what it is going to look like and how it will change the aesthetics of the
neighborhaod because right now it fits in with the neighborhood and he is concerned it
won't when it's done.
Sheldon Silberman, 12Q Westwood Qrive North, asked about the watershed requirements
and asked how many square feet of additional square footage would trigger Breck
needing a watershed permit or approval. Kluchka stated that a 10% increase would
trigger watershed approval. Waldhauser noted that the property is extremely limited
because af existing wetland conditions so it is unlikely that enough building couJd be put
an the property to trigger a wetland review. Silberman said this is a very environmentally
sensitive site so he is very worried about this proposal gaing farward without knowing the
entire plan. He said another concern he has is the lighting an the property. He said at his
elevation he looks down an the school and he can see the lighting at Breck very distinctly.
In the past, Breck made changes that have helped, but he hopes there won't be an issue
with this proposal. He said he is concerned about the sound from the mechanicals on the
roof and the reflection from the sun, so reflective surfaces should be taken into account.
He is also concerned about the piecemeal planning process and urged the Gity to be
careful of this proposed phase approach. He said he is happy Breck is putting money into
their buildings and improving them and the architectural plans seem to be nicely done.
Brandie Karhoff, 18 4ttawa Avenue, said her only concern is traffic. She said there are 10
kids that live in the five or six houses on Qttawa. They do the best they can ta keep the
kids in the back yard but with the school buses and traffic in the area it is like a freeway
with parents and students driving way too fast. She asked if traffic could be restricted with
speed bumps or something similar. She added that it is not true that all construction
workers will use Lilac Drive because at the neighborhood meeting with Breck they said
some of them will park by the tennis courts and will come down Ottawa.
Cheryl Scott, 437 Westwood Drive North, said a comprehensive traffic management study
needs to be done now, She said two weeks ago a Breck parent hit a school bus and she
is eoncerned that someone is going to get hurt. She referred to the architectural design
and said Breck shauld have considered a different location for the mechanicals other than
on the roof. Removing the mechanicals from the roof would get rid of some of the height
and make the neighbors happier. She said she is concerned about the other phases of
construction and increased enrollment because if Breck is investing this type of money
they are going to increase their enrollment. She urged the Planning Commission to think
about what this is doing to their neighborhood.
Steve Robin, 25 Ottawa, said he thinks Breck is a great neighbor and has been very
cooperative. He said he thinks a vital Breck is important to the community but he wants to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 4
underline the issue of the height of the building. He said the proposed height and square
footage are not necessary. Breck chose this design and the end result is a building that is
larger and taller than it needs to be. He said Golden Valley High School had plenty of
room when they were in this building. He said he doesn't think there is one neighbor in
the area who thinks Breck won't increase their enrollment and it is disingenuous for Breck
to say they won't because they wouldn't spend all this money and increase the square
footage this much if they weren't. He said his main concern is traffic and he doesn't
understand why Lilac Drive can't be made usable instead of having construction traffic go
up and down Ottawa for 15 months. He said the current habits of Breck parents are out of
control. He understands Breck does what they can during rush hours and he's not
objecting to the rush hours, but it is a recipe for disaster with kids speeding up and down
the street, not stopping for his wife in the crosswalk. He said there are things Breck can
be doing to control the traffic and questioned why there hasn't been any traffic abatement.
He said he is also wondering why the neighborhood was notified so late and said traffic
should have been studied before this proposal and before the problem is magnified. He
said the general attitude from Breck has been that they can't contral human behavior.
Jim Vos, 10 Natchez Avenue North, said he thinks it's important to ask Breck about their
future phases of constructian. He said Mr. Kim stood before the City Council and said
there will be four phases of construction and the enrollment will increase by 25%. He said
he worked on the Allianz project and they had to show the City all af their proposed
phases of constructian so it is not fair to neighborhood to not require Breck to do the
same. He said he is also concerned about the height of the new building and agreed that
speed bumps could be installed to help with the traffic issues.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Waldhauser said there is obviously an existing traffic concern with or without this current
proposal. She said she thinks the City can speak to the traffic issues only in that they
might be aggravated during construction.
Kluchka questioned haw the City can put some traffic controls in place given that a
master plan has not been reviewed.
Kisch stated that the enrollment and land use issues are tied to the constraints of the
PUD permit. He suggested that any future PUD amendments or enrollmsnt increases
require a traffic study.
Waldhauser said it is her understanding that the existing PUD permit stating that the
Police Chief will be monitoring traffic gives the city more control than a traffic
management plan would. Grimes stated that the existing PUD permit says if there is a
traffic problem Breck has to work on resolving it with the Police Chief. He reiterated that
Breck has made efforts to work with the City regarding their issues related to traffic and
that the City is dealing the same amount of traffic and the same amount of students as it
did before this PUD amendment proposal. He added that the traffic issues will be brought
to the City's Traffic Safety Committee for review. Kluchka said that the same amount of
Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 5
students from 40 years ago is not the same amount cars. He said Breck is a valued part
of this neighborhood, but things have changed and there has to be a control in place ta
deal with the traffic even though the numbers aren't changing. Segelbaum said it is one
thing for the Planning Commission to discuss the traffic issues but he thinks they would
be better handled by the Traffic Safety Committee.
Oliver explained that approximately eight years ago, the City Council established the
Traffic Safety Committee which is made up of representatives from the Public Works and
Engineering Department, Police Department, Communications Department, as well as the
City's consulting traffic engineer. He stated that the comments generated from Breck's
Preliminary Plan review have already been sent to the Traffic Committee. The Committee
is in the process of defining the issues and gathering data including: turning caunt
movement, traffic volumes and speed. He stated that Breck has indicated that they are
very willing to work with City to address the issues and provide solutions. He explained
that traffic engineering is not as simple as putting in a sign. It's as much psychology and
educatian as it is engineering and enforcement. There needs to be a balanced approach
to address the issues. He said one key component is going to be what Breck does to
educate their parents and students. He said as far as requiring a traffic management plan
he thinks that an increase in enrollment could be an appropriate trigger for developing a
traffic plan.
Waldhauser noted that the neighbors have said that the traffic during peak hours has
been managed fairly well so she agrees that behavior and tools that encourage better
driving habits need to be considered in this case. Oliver agreed and said that the
neighbors have been heard loud and clear and staff is taking a very close look at the long
terms traffic issues.
Cera asked Oliver about the timeline in gathering data. Oliver said staff has started
gathering data and within a couple of months he hopes to have adequate data to start
meeting with Breck in order to have a number of issues worked out befare school starts in
the falL
Schmidgall asked about turning Ottawa into a cul-de-sac and directing traffic into Breck
from Lilac Drive. Oliver said that would be complicated due ta the fact that a significant
portion of the site is within the floodplain of Bassett Creek.
Waldhauser asked if directing construction traffic onto Lilac Drive wauld be an option.
Qliver said there is concern about the turning radius on Lilac Drive and there is also
concern about the structural capability of Lilac Drive. He said Ottawa is designed to
accommodate the truck traffic, and if managed properly, he believes Ottawa is the best
option.
Segelbaum asked what tools the traffic committee has to address the issues and if speed
bumps or stop sign could be considered. Oliver stated that studies have shown that
speed bumps do slow cars down, but they also slow down emergency vehicles.
The studies have also shown than the faster a person drives over a speed bump, the less
impact there is, so speed bumps need to be considered carefully.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 6
Waldhauser suggested adding a condition of approval that there be a traffic study done
before school opens in the falt. Segelbaum said the traffic committee is in the process of
conducting their study.
Kluchka said he is concerned about enforcing the traffic issues and asked if a condition
can be put in place to make sure the traffic issues are addressed before construction
begins. Kisch noted that the traffic study is City-driven so Breck won't be able to dictate
the timeframe of the study.
Cera said he feels there are two different issues. One is the �xisting traffic and one is the
traffic during construction. He said he is less concerned about the construction traffic
because it is temporary.
Oliver said he thinks there is language that could be incorporated into the approval
requiring Breck to cooperate with the traffic study.
Segelbaum asked if Lilac Drive can even be considered as an alternate route. Bake
Baker, McGough Construction, explained that they have considered using Lilac Drive far
construction traffic but there are several concerns including: the steep turning radius
coming off of Glenwood onto Lilac Drive, the grade/steepness on Lilac Drive, the
capability and condition of Lilac Drive to accommodate heavy trucks and the internal
campus circulatian of traffic, buses and construction traffic. He stated that they are not
intending to have construction traffic during the peak traffic hours at Breck.
Kluchka said he thinks it is within the Planning Commission's prevue to be looking for
incentives for improving a bad situation before desired investments are made, especially
in a PUD. Grimes said he agrees, but some of the investments and improvements might
have to be made off of the Breck campus so there has ta be cooperative agreement
between the City and Breck.
Waldhauser asked the applicant to address the design of the building and why the
mechanicals are being proposed to be on the roof. James Baird, Architect for the project,
said they considered putting the mechanics below grade but there was concern about the
soil conditions and undermining the foundation of the adjoining buildings. Waldhauser
asked if the mechanicals could go on a different roof. Baird said that because of the
nature of the space as science labs the equipment has to be tied to those spaces.
Cera asked for clarification regarding the neighbor's comment about what the applicant
said to the City Council about their future enrollment. Kim reiterated that in this particular
phase they are not asking for a change in enrollment. He said the question before him at
the City Council meeting was if enrollment could conceptually change in the future. Cera
asked if there is a schedule for decisions regarding future phases. Kim said na.
Kluchka referred to the neighbor's concern about lighting. Baird said they are not
proposing to light the building externally and they are not going to be changing any of the
parking lot lighting. Kim added that part of the usage of the roof will be an astronomy lab,
so they also want to keep the lighting down.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 7
Kluchka asked about �Itering the noise from the mechanicals and light from reflective
surfaces. Baird said the mechanicals will be screened. He explained that the east side of
the building, where most of the houses are located, will consist of mastly solid surfaces so
the reflection won't be that different from how it is currently.
Waldhauser said she is still in the position thafithe Planning Commission should approve
the request with all of the original conditions and added conditions regarding the
cammunication plan and the ongoing work of the Traffic Committee.
Kisch said he would like to add a condition that any increase in enrollment will trigger that
a Traffic Demand Management Plan be done.
Segelbaum said he doesn't think they have addressed the continued review of Lilac Drive
as an alternate route for traffic. Oliver noted that staff will further investigate whether Lilac
Drive would be a viable option for traffic. Cera suggested that also be made a condition af
approvat.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimausly to
recommend approval of Breck's PUD Amendment request subject to the follawing
conditions. Kluchka amended the mation to include a parking study along with a Traffic
Demand Management Pfan be done for any enrollment increase over 1200 students.
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson ta Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
March 14, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works
Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director af Planning and Development, dated
April 3, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. The Construction Traffic Plan, submitted by the applicant, April 4, 2Q12, shall become
a part of this approval.
5. The Construction Communication Plan, submitted by the applicant, April 4, 2012,
shall become a part of this approval.
6. Construction times for the proposed addition associated with this amendment shall be
Manday through Saturday, 7 am — 7 pm. In the event of an emergeney, the Director
af Public Works, or her designee, may authorize additional construction time.
7. Breck shall work with the City to implement the recommendations of the City's Traffic
Safety Committee to improve traffic flow and safety for the 2012-2013 school year.
8. The Traffic Safety Committee shall consider optians for using Lilac Drive.
9. A Traffic Demand Management Plan and Parking Study shall be required for any
future enrollment increase above 1200 students.
10. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
11. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2012
Page 8
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No ather reports were given.
4. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.
� (,�
David A. Cera, Secretary