08-12-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
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,
August 12, 2013. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Kluchka,
McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was City Planner Joe Hogeboom,
Planning Intern Brett Angell and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
Cera was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
July 22, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the first motion on page 5 and questioned if the words "to
enable construction in an economical fashion" should be included. Kluchka suggested
they be removed, the Commissioners agreed.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the July 22, 2013 minutes with the above noted change.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Room and Board PUD #79, Amendment#4
Applicant: Room and Board
Address: 4600 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To relocate their outlet sales into the existing warehouse, demolish
the existing outlet building for the construction of parking and
construct a second floor in the existing warehouse to be used as
office space.
Angell gave a brief history of the Room and Board PUD. He showed the Commission
photos of the site and explained the applicant's request to relocate their outlet sales into
the existing warehouse, demolish the existing outlet building for the construction af
parking and construct a second fioor in the existing warehouse to be used as office
space and attach a sign on the exterior of the warehouse to designate the entry to outlet
sales.
Waldhauser asked about the maximum impervious surface coverage allawed.
Hogeboom explained that there aren't impervious surface requirements for this property
however, there are lot coverage requirements which state that na mare than 5Q% of the
lot can be cavered by buildings. Angell added that this praposal will raise the imperviaus
surface coverage by 1.4%.
Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 2
Segelbaum asked if the roadway leading to this site is sufficient to support this
proposed expansion. Hogeboom stated that the Public Works staff reviews traffic issues
and they did not have any concerns about traffic at this site.
Waldhauser asked if the proposal meets setback requirements. Hogeboom stated that
since this is a PUD there aren't specific setback requirements but the proposal does
meet the setback requirements for the underlying (Industrial) zoning district.
Waldhauser asked if a second level is being added to the warehouse on the northeast
side of the property. Daryl Fortier, representing Room and Board, stated that an
intermediate level, not a second story, is being created within the existing warehouse
building on the west side of the property.
Waldhauser asked if there will be less parking available on the northeast side of the
property. Fortier explained that the existing fire lane will remain and a twenty-faot wide
piece of land will be paved for parking an the northeast side of the property. He added
that they are not impinging on the existing open space.
McCarty asked if the employees use public transportation. Jeremy Larson, Room and
Board, said he doesn't know the number of employees that use public transportation but
they do encourage their employees to bike to work.
McCarty said the parking on the site seems tight. Fortier stated that right now they have
adequate parking because 100% of the employees aren't on site every day. McCarty
asked if there are second shifts. Fortier said no. He explained that the biggest parking
problem occurs on Saturday mornings for the outlet sales but that this proposed plan
will alleviate that issue.
Segelbaum asked if the business operations will change as a part of this proposal.
Larsan said no, the hours and use will remain the same.
Segelbaum noted that the narrative states that the sign on the warehouse building wan't
be visible from Highway 55 and asked if that is a City requirement. Fortier explained that
they just want people to be able to distinguish between the outlet entry and the
employee entry. Hogeboom added that the applicant will be required to fallow the
requirements in the sign code.
Kluchka asked if they will be operating during construction. Fortier said yes, the outlet
operations will move to the warehouse and then demolition will commence. He added
that the access will be changed for approximately three months. Hogeboom noted that
an access plan will also be required.
Boudreau-Landis asked how snow removal is handled. Larson explained that snow is
plowed to the northeast corner of the site and then hauled away when needed.
Hogeboom said the City isn't aware of any snow storage issues on this site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 3
Kluchka asked if the rooftop mechanicals will be screened. Fortier stated that there are
some existing rooftop mechanical units but not on the warehouse building, He stated
that if units are added they won't be visible from the frontage road or from Schaper
Park. Hogeboom stated that the building permit process will address the screening of
the mechanicals.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said the proposal seems like a reasonable way to expand, there will be no
adverse effects and the increase in the amount of parking will be appreciated. McCarty
agreed that all the issues have been addressed. Segelbaum also agreed.
Kluchka said he would like to knaw the parking ratios for the Industrial zoning district
v�rsus what the applicant is proposing. Hogeboom explained that the parking
requirements are analyzed by the use, not by zoning district. He added that he would
further analyze the parking on the site.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for Room and Board PUD #79,
Amendment #4 subject to the following findings and canditions:
Findings:
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects 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.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of
the land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
Conditions:
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 Chief
John Crelly to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director dated July 26, 2013,
shall become part of this approval.
3. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2p13
Page 4
3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review — Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Meadowbrook School PUD #90, Amendment#3
Applicant: Hopkins Public Schools
Address: 5430 Glenwood Avenue
Purpose: To construct an interconnection addition between the existing facility
and the adjacent facility located at 540Q Glenwood Avenue.
Hogeboom gave a brief history of the Meadowbrook PUD. He explained that the
applicant is proposing to amend their PUD Permit to allow far the construction of a small
additian and the incorporation of the current Crisis Nursery Facility (5400 Glenwood
Ave.) into the main school facility. The 5400 Glenwood Ave. building would be used for
additional classroom space and would be interconnected ta the main school facility via a
tunnel. The Crisis Nursery is moving to a new location in south Minneapolis. He stated
that the applicant will also be going through the rezoning process for the 5400
Glenwood Avenue property to rezone it from I-3 Institutional to I-1 Institutional.
Kluchka asked if the proposed tunnel is underground. Hogeboom exptained that there is
a grade difference between the two properties and that the applicant would explain the
tunnel in further detail.
Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this PUD amendment and
feels that the proposed plan will make the current traffic issues on the site better. He
added that the applicant would like to start construction this year so it is done for the
next school year.
Segelbaum said he is concerned about the traffic issues on this site and is curiaus how
the proposed new plan will improve the traffic issues. He asked if the City would
consider requiring a traffic study. Hogeboom stated that the Engineering staff feels
comfortable with the proposed traffic plans because drop-offs will be more controlled.
Waldhauser asked if this proposal is being driven by an expansion of the student
population. Hogeboom stated that yes, student projections are up.
Baker referred to the Public Works memo where it states that staff will continue to
monitor the access and circulation issues. However, he knows there are some pretty
severe circulation problems at Meadowbrook currently. Kluchka suggested requiring a
traffic study be done as a condition of approval.
Patrick Poquette, Hopkins School District, agreed that there is currently a circulation
issue. He referred to a map of the property and explained how they will be alleviating
the issue by having a drop-off location at the Crisis Nursery building where there will be
no buses which will allow for extra parking stalls and will help with the traffic issues.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 5
Waldhauser asked if there are "reduce speed signs" on Glenwood Avenue. Poquette
said he doesn't think so.
Baker said there are finro big problems. One is the left turn out of Meadowbrook
especially in the winter and the other is the circulation pattern. He said there is a need
to address the traffic issues and continuing the same circulation pattern is not a solution
to the problem. Poquette referred to a site plan and discussed the circulation patterns.
He reiterated that being able to use the Crisis Nursery property will really help with the
traffic issues.
Segelbaum asked Poquette if he has contemplated doing a traffic study. Poquette said
he has worked with the City's staff regarding traffic but if they need to do a traffic study
they will.
Kluchka referred to the proposed tunnel and asked if there are basements in the
buildings or if the tunnel will be on the first floors. Poquette stated that the tunnel will be
in the lower level of the Crisis Nursery building. Kluchka suggested that the applicant
prepare plans or illustrations of the tunnel to show the City Council.
Waldhauser asked Poquette if the expectation is to add five new teachers over five
years and if there will be an additional 100 to 150 students. Poquette said yes, if
everything goes well, there will be an additional 125 students.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they would like to consider adding a condition
requiring the applicant to provide a traffic plan or a circulation plan.
Boudreau-Landis agreed that the parking lot does fill up but his thinks this proposed
plan will definitely improve the situation.
Segelbaum stated that a traffic study looks at the impact to the roads, not on the site
itself. He said he doesn't think requiring a circulation plan is enough and questioned if
there is something more that would provide an analysis of the internal site.
Waldhauser said she thinks the City's job is to consider the impacts on the public
streets and that the internal circulation and parking on the site can be considered by the
parents and the school. McCarty agreed. Baker questioned if the City has any
responsibility regarding the traffic in and around Meadowbrook. Waldhauser reiterated
that she thinks the City's responsibility is to consider the impact on public streets.
Segelbaum said the entrance and exit on Turners Crossroad does impact public streets
and stated that a traffic study might be appropriate. Hogeboom suggested that the
applicant discuss their internal circulation in greater detail and provide a plan that shows
drop-off and pickup locations and times, where staff, parents and buses will park, haw
the entrances and exits will work, etc. and then staff can further analyze the issues.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 6
Kluchka suggested that a condition of approval be added stating that the applicant shall
submit a traffic circulation plan that improves the public street access and safety.
McCarty said he would be interested in data that shows tentative counts of employees,
parent drop-offs and trip counts on Glenwood Avenue in each direction to show that the
property can handle this proposal. Hogeboom suggested that the applicant prepare a
plan showing that data in regard to the current use and another plan showing the same
data with the proposed amendment in place.
Baker said he would also like to require the addition of elevation drawings as a condition
of approval. McCarty said he would also like to see building section drawings.
MOVED by Waldhauser and seconded by Baker to recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Meadowbrook School PUD #90, Amendment#3 with the addition of
the following conditions:
• The applicant shall submit a traffic comparison, demonstrating an improvement in
traffic flow on and off of Glenwood Avenue and Turners Crossroad.
• The applicant shall submit interior elevation and building section drawings of the
proposed tunnel addition.
Segelbaum noted that the language in the motion regarding the traffic plan is different
than the language Kluchka proposed. Kluchka agreed that the motion made is slightly
different than what he suggested and he said he didn't think the intent was to require an
elevation plan. He said the condition he suggested was that the applicant shall submit a
traffic circulation plan that impraves the public street access and safety. McCarty asked
Kluchka if his motion is referring to Glenwood Avenue. Kluchka said he is not being
specific. McCarty said he is more concerned that this plan doesn't negatively impact the
existing situation. Baker said he would like to use the word "improve" because this is an
opportunity to do things better. McCarty said he is not sure how the word "improve" can
be defined or quantified. Baker stated that when the applicant comes back with a
comparison of the current traffic situation and the traffic situation after the proposed
project the Commission should be able to tell if it affects the area positively ar
negatively. Segelbaum said he would like the word "improve" to be included in the
conditions of approval as well.
Kluchka suggested the conditions in the motion be amended to read that the ongoing
traffic circulation plan will ensure appropriate public street access and safety for all
entries and exits and internal circulation for public safety vehicles. He suggested
another condition be added that states traffic study data shall be provided ta assist in
reviewing traffic impact of the new development. The Commission agreed unanimously
to the amended motion. The findings and conditions are as follows:
Findinqs
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 7
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects 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.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of
the land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general wetfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by SGN/Wendel, dated July 24, 2013, submitted with the
application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Chief
John Crelly to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director dated August 5, 2013,
shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated August 7, 2013, shall
become a part of this approval.
4. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project
prior to Final PUD approval.
5. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
7. An ongoing traffic circulation plan shall be submitted to ensure appropriate public
street access and safety for all entries and exits and internal circulation for public
safety vehicles.
8. Traffic study data shall be provided to assist in reviewing traffic impact of the new
development.
4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Intersection of Noble Drive
and Major Drive — Hanson Wood Shores —SU06-05
Applicant: George Wessin
Address: Intersection of Noble Drive and Major Drive
Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single
family residential lot into three new single family residential lots.
Hogeboom referred to a location map and discussed the applicant's proposal to
subdivide an existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential
lots. He explained that staff would like to see a more cohesive development of severat
of the lots in this area and for that reason staff is not recommending approval of the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 12, 2013
Page 8
proposed subdivision. As a result, the applicant has asked that their proposal be tabled
to the September 9 Planning Commission meeting so that they could re-draw their
plans,
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 5 to 1 to table this
public hearing to the September 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum
voted no.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Gouncil, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Hogeboom informed the Commission that there will be a Bottineau roundtable meeting
at Unity Christ Church on Thursday, August 15 at 6:15 pm.
Kluchka informed the Commission that Baker and Waldhauser will be appointed to the
Bottineau LRT Planning Advisory Committee and stated that he would like regular
updates provided to the Commission.
6. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
Council Member Schmidgall referred to the Meadowbrook public hearing and stated that
there are indeed signs regarding school speed limits posted along Glenwood Avenue.
He discussed items that will be on the August 13 Council/Manager meeting including:
The City of Robbinsdale and Three Rivers Park District's proposal to take over the
management and programming at some of the bordering nature areas/parks including
Mary Hills Park, discussion about the location of waste, recycling and yard waste
containers, organized waste hauling, bicycle racks being placed in City parks and
recreational fires.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
harles . Seg aum, Secreta