10-14-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 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,
October 14, 2013. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Cera, Kluchka,
McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development
Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Finance Director Sue Virnig, Public
Works Specialist Eric Eckman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
September 9, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
McCarty noted several typographical errors.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the September 9, 2013 minutes with the corrections McCarty pointed out.
2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2014-2018 — Sue Virnig, City
Finance Director
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is
a 5-year financing planning instrument used to identify needed capital projects and to
delineate the financing and timing of associated projects. Because of its relationship
with the City's Comprehensive Plan the CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission
annually.
Segelbaum referred to page five of the Financing section and noted there was a
comment regarding Tax Increment Bonds for the Golden Hills district and asked for a
status on the TIF District. Virnig stated that the Golden Hills district started in 1984 and
was extended by special legislation to 2015 in order to pay off debt. Segelbaum
questioned if this is a separate issue from the Xenia development and other
developments in that area. Virnig stated that was correct and noted that the Xenia
development is in a TIF district but they did not require tax increment help.
Waldhauser said she noticed some significant investments in street upgrades and
repairs for some areas targeted for future development. She asked if there are any
upgrades proposed for the I-394 corridor area. Virnig stated that the residential streets
behind the proposed 3.9.4 development were recently upgraded and noted that there
are 12 miles of streets left to complete in the entire city. Waldhauser questioned if there
will be any upgrades in the area around Xenia and Laurel. Virnig stated that the
Metropolitan Council did some sewer lining in that area and some traffic upgrades are
being considered along Xenia and Golden Hills.
Segelbaum referred to the Building section and noted that there is $100,000 budgeted
for a community center needs assessment. He asked if that means the City is in the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 2
early stages of improving Brookview Community Center. Virnig said yes, there will be a
needs study conducted.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 1400 Spring Valley
Road — Boathouse —CU-135
Applicant: Scott Eastman
Address: 1400 Spring Valley Road
Purpose: To allow for a boathouse in the R-1 Residential Zoning District.
Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to build a boathouse on Sweeney Lake. He
explained that Conditional Use Permits are typically used in the Commercial and
Industrial zoning districts, however, boathouses in the R-1 Residential zoning district
require a Conditional Use Permit as outlined in Section 11.65 Shoreland Management
Section of the Zoning Code. He referred to the applicant's proposal and stated that he
would like to build a new 120 square foot boathouse which will replace an existing 48
square foot shed/boathouse. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the
proposal and added that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the
DNR has reviewed the proposal and has no objection.
Kluchka asked what options the applicant would have without a Conditional Use Permit.
Hogeboom stated that the only thing the applicant could do without a Conditional Use
Permif is replace the existing structure with one the same size, in the same location or
build a new boathouse 75 feet away from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Sweeney
Lake. In this case, the structure will be larger, in a different location and closer to the
Ordinary High Water mark than 75 feet.
Baker asked Hogeboom if the DNR had no objection or no comment to the proposed
boathouse. Hogeboom explained that affected agencies are sent planning proposals and
that the DNR hasn't commented on this proposal.
Kluchka asked if motorized watercrafts are allowed on Sweeney Lake. Hogeboom said
yes, however only non-motorized watercrafts can use the public boat launch.
Kluchka asked if this Conditional Use Permit would allow only a 10 ft. x 12 ft. structure.
Hogeboom said yes and stated that if the applicant wanted to build something different he
would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit amendment.
Segelbaum asked about the height of the proposed structure. Hogeboom stated that the
Zoning Code allows all accessory structures to be 10 feet high from the floor to the top
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 3
plate of the structure. Segelbaum asked if that should be specified in the Conditional Use
Permit.
McCarty asked if there are design requirements. Hogeboom said no.
Baker asked if the proposed boathouse will require a change to the shoreline vegetation.
Hogeboom said he didn't think so, but suggested the applicant answer that question.
Scott Eastman, Applicant, explained that he is also doing a landscaping project that has
received Bassett Creek Watershed Commission approval. He added that his intent is to
plant prairie grasses that will help with filtration. Baker asked if there is vegetation in the
water. Eastman said it won't be disturbed.
Cera referred to the site plan and asked the applicant about the deck that is being
replaced. Eastman stated that there is a wood deck currently located on the property that
he is proposing to replace with pavers. He added the deck proposal was included in the
landscaping plan approved by the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak Kluchka
closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum suggested adding a condition to their recommendation stating that the
applicant will have to abide by all other accessory structure requirements. Kluchka
questioned if that is necessary or if accessory structure requirements would have to be
met regardless. Hogeboom stated that staff didn't feel additional language was necessary
because the applicant wi!! have to follow all of the Zoning Code requirements. Grimes
said he didn't think there would be any harm in saying that the boathouse shall be
considered an accessory structure.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a boathouse subject
to the following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. The site plan shall become a part of this approval.
2. The boathouse shall be used solely for the storage of boats and boating equipment.
3. All future improvements to the building shall meet the City's Building Code
requirements.
4. The boathouse shall be considered an accessory structure under the City's Zaning
Code.
5. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
Findinqs:
1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a market
for the proposed good or service necessitating a CUP. In this case, the applicant has
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 4
demonstrated that his existing boathouse is inadequate in size to store marine
equipment.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map guides
this site for low density residential use. A boathouse is complementary to the
residential nature of this property.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: The proposed new boathouse is part of a larger
landscaping plan for the property. The work that is being conducted should enhance
the appearance of the property.
4. Effect on Traffic in the Area: The proposed boathouse will cause no increase in traffic.
5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed boathouse will
have no effect on population.
6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: Aside from noise associated with construction, the
proposed boathouse will not generate noise.
7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: These issues will not be a problem at this
location.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The proposed boathouse will not
attract animal pests of any kind.
9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The proposed boathouse is part of a larger landscaping
and property renovation project. It should enhance the visual appearance of the site.
10.Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed
use.
4. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 9400 Golden Valley
Road — Daycare Expansion — CU-121, Amendment#2
Applicant: Orion Associates
Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow the applicant's existing daycare center to offer daycare to the
general public, as well as their employees in the Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District.
Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use
Permit. He stated that the applicant's original Conditional Use Permit allowed daycare for
up to 10 children for their employees only. In 2010 an amendment was approved to allow
daycare for up to 28 children for their employees. This current request is to allow them to
offer daycare to people not employed there. He noted that the drop-off and pick-up time
for the daycare are different from the regular business hours so there shouldn't be traffic
or parking issues and that staff is recommending approval of this request.
Waldhauser questioned why there is a restriction on outdoor signage promoting the
daycare in the existing Conditional Use Permit. Hogeboom stated that that restriction was
placed in the original Conditional Use Permit because the daycare is only allowed to serve
employees, not the general public. Grimes added that the applicant is allowed a certain
amount of signage per the City's Sign Code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 5
Cera referred to the Deputy Fire Chief's memo and questioned why it refers to the number
of children as going from 10 children to 15 children. Hogeboom stated that the Deputy Fire
Chief used those numbers because the applicanYs daycare license allows them to provide
care for 15 children even though their Conditional Use Permit allows 28 children. Kluchka
asked that the Deputy Fire Chief's memo be updated.
Baker asked about the daycare's enrollment numbers. Angela Cavalier, representing the
applicant, explained that their daycare license issued by the State allows them to provide
care for 15 children. She stated that they currently have 12 children which is why they are
hoping to be able to open up their enrollment to the public. Cera asked if they would
increase their enrollment beyond 15 children. Cavalier said no and explained that they
don't have enough square footage for more than 15 children.
McCarty asked why it has been a challenge to provide daycare to employees only.
Cavalier stated that the utilization of the daycare changes. She explained that they have
had 15 children in the past but that they need to have more children to make it cash
neutral.
McCarty asked about precedence and questioned how an employee would be able to put
a child in the daycare if a non-employee already has the spot. Cavalier stated that in that
case the employee's child would have to wait for an opening.
McCarty asked Cavalier how they will advertise for the daycare. Cavalier said they would
start by approaching their neighboring businesses.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Kluchka
closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum stated that he is supportive of this proposal since the applicant is nowhere
near their maximum allowed number of 28 children. Cera questioned if the maximum
number of 28 children should be changed. The Commissioners didn't think the Conditional
Use Permit needs to change because their license from the State will determine how
many children they can have in their daycare.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of amending CUP #121 to allow the applicant's existing daycare
center to offer daycare to the general public, as well as their employees subject to the
following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. All existing conditions (except condition #2) continue to be met.
2. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and
the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
3. A Minnesota registered architect must establish a fire code analysis to assign an
`educational occupant' designation to the area of the building used for the daycare
facility. The code analysis must be reviewed by the Building Official and the Fire
Marshal to ensure proper building and fire code requirements.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 6
4. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Findinqs:
1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a market
for the proposed good or service necessitating a CUP. In this case, the applicant
believes that there is a market for daycare services in this area.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map guides
this site for affice uses. Childcare facilities are allowed in office areas with a
Conditional Use Permit.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: The daycare service is already in place, and
so this amendment should have no effect on property values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic in the Area: To alleviate traffic and parking generated at this site,
RHT Office has opened a second office facility in Hopkins. This has reduced some
traffic and on-street parking at this site. In addition, the hours of operation for the
daycare are different from the normal client hours at the site. Therefore staff does
not believe that this request will affect traffic in the area.
5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed use will have
no effect on population.
6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: The proposed use will not result in increased
noise.
7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: The proposed use will not result in any
dust, odor or vibration.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The proposed use will not attract
animal pests of any kind.
9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The proposed amendment will have no impact of the
visual appearance on the site.
10.Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the
proposed use.
5. lnformal Public Hearing — Final 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 5400 Glenwood Avenue.
Hogeboom stated that this proposal is the Final Plan review phase of the applicant's
PUD amendment proposal. He explained that the proposed PUD amendment would
allow for the construction of a small addition, the incorporation of the current Crisis
Nursery Facility into the main school facility and a tunnel connection between the two
buildings. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the Final PUD plan and
added that the City's consulting traffic engineer has also been working with the
applicant to implement some traffic improvements on their site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 7
Segelbaum asked if the traffic plan will be adopted by the City Council. Kluchka asked if
the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the traffic plan. Grimes
stated that the plan will be reviewed by the City Council as part of their review and that
traffic will also continue to be monitored by staff.
Dan Bosch, ESG, representing the applicant, referred to the site plans and explained
where the small classroom addition and tunnel will be located. He also explained the
stormwater changes on the site and how the traffic flow will work on the school and the
crisis nursery parking lots.
Waldhauser asked if the kids will have to go through the tunnel to access the
playground. Patrick Poquette, Hopkins Schools, Applicant, explained that the third
graders will use the tunnel to access the playground but the early childcare kids will use
the crisis nursery play area.
Kluchka asked about the applicant's snow storage plan. Bosch referred to the site plan
and showed where snow will be stored.
Segelbaum stated that parents are already using the Crisis Nursery parking lot and
questioned if there will be a path from that lot to the school entrance. Poquette
explained that the people who use the Crisis Nursery parking lot will be dropping off
their children at that site and that others will use the school parking lot. He also stated
that there is a 10-foot grade difference so they are not proposing to build a path or
sidewalk in that location. He added that they would like to have their new plan for
parking in place on November 1.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Final Plan for Meadowbrook Elementary School PUD #90,
Amendment 3, subject to the following conditions and findings:
Conditions
1. The plans prepared by SGNNVendel, dated August 28, 2013, submitted with the
application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recomrnendations 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 October 10, 2013,
shall become a part of this approval.
4. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Minutes of the Goiden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 8
Findin s:
1. Quality Site Planning. 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. Preservation. 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. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which
includes preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the
general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision
and all other PUD ordinance provisions.
6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 5400 Glenwood Avenue —
Meadowbrook School —Z008-03
Applicant: Hopkins Public Schools
Address: 5400 Glenwood Avenue
Purpose: To accommodate the construct an interconnection addition between
the existing facility and the adjacent facility located at 5430
Glenwood Avenue as part of Amendment#3 to PUD #90.
Hogeboom explained that the rezoning of the Crisis Nursery property at 5400 Glenwood
Avenue from Institutional I-3 (rest homes, sanitariums, nursing homes, clinics) to
Institutional I-1 (churches and schools) is a necessity for the property to be incorporated
into the Meadowbrook School PUD.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of rezoning the property at 5400 Glenwood Avenue from
Institutional I-3 to Institutional I-1.
7. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development
(PUD) — Room and Board PUD #79, Amendment#4
Applicant: Room and Board
Address: 4600 Olson Memorial Highway
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 9
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.
Hogeboom stated that this proposal is the Final Plan review phase of the applicant's
PUD amendment proposal. He explained that the proposed PUD amendment would
allow the applicant 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. He added that the City Council
approved the Preliminary PUD plan at their September 3 meeting. At that meeting a
neighboring property owner expressed concern about traffic.
Segelbaum asked if the neighbor's concern was weekday or weekend traffic.
Hogeboom said the concern was the traffic with outlet sales on weekends. Segelbaum
questioned why the traffic study was conducted on a Wednesday. Grimes stated that
there were a number of concerns and that the neighbor's concerns were mostly
regarding weekday traffic. He said he feels the issues were addressed in the traffic
study report. Kluchka asked if the concerns have been alleviated. Waldhauser stated
that the concerns were the infrequency of the traffic light changes on Highway 55.
Daryl Fortier, Fortier Architects, representing the Applicant, explained the changes in
the plans since the preliminary plan review. He stated that the biggest change has been
that they are not going to proceed with the additional parking spaces on the northeast
corner, which adjusts the tress preservation plan allowing them to keep more trees and
decrease the density of the project. Baker asked if the proposed changes will affect
snow storage. Fortier said no.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Stuart Rubin, States Manufacturing, said he was the neighbor who spoke at the City
Council meeting. He stated that one of his concerns is traffic and the other is the water
run-off. He said he hasn't heard anything to alleviate his concerns. He said Room &
Board is adding 168 employees and that his employees are already backed up at the
stop lights now. He said they've had issues will run-off and now there will be a loss of
6,000 square feet of pervious surface which isn't going to improve the run-off situation.
He said he would like assurances that this project isn't going to make anything worse
and if it does he wants to know what he can do.
Waldhauser suggested that Mr. Rubin read the traffic report and the City Engineer's
staff report. Rubin said he wants it on record that he has concerns about the traffic and
run-off issues. Waldhauser noted that Room & Board offered to do a joint analysis of the
run-off concerns. Rubin said he doesn't want to pay for a study for something Room &
Board is doing.
Kluchka asked Grimes for a better summary of the traffic and run-off issues. Grimes
referred to the City Engineer's memo where it talks about steps the City will take to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 10
address the run-off issues and in terms of traffic, it appears there are some issues but
adding more traffic controls is not the solution. He stated that the City will continue to
monitor the situation. Kluchka questioned if the streets are operating at a sufficient level
and that adding to the traffic won't ruin the capacity. Grimes said that is correct.
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, explained that Room & Board did some
improvements in 1999 and States Manufacturing has said that those improvements
caused water run-off issues. He said the City understands that the issue was addressed
by Room & Board approximately 10 years ago with an earthen berm and a retaining
wall adjacent to States Manufacturing that seems to be working. He said that States
Manufacturing still has concerns about drainage and that Room & Board has offered to
do a number of things including excavating and maintenance of the existing stormwater
pond.
Waldhauser asked if stormwater pond maintenance is an ongoing thing. Eckman said
yes. Boudreau-Landis asked if there is a recommended interval for maintenance.
Eckman said they should be inspected annually. Waldhauser asked if this proposal is
an opportunity to get a maintenance agreement from the applicant. Eckman said yes
and explained that the staff report from the City Engineer becomes a part of the PUD
Permit. Baker asked if the items being discussed will address the neighbor's concerns.
Eckman said the items addressed should help with the neighbor's concerns but the
drainage issues can't be completely predicted. He added that it is positive that the
proposed addition isn't adjacent to the slope so there will be no additional volume
flowing toward the north. Baker asked if there is a threshold that triggers the dredging of
a pond. Eckman said yes. Kluchka questioned the best way for the neighbor to
understand. Eckman said staff knows that States Manufacturing has some legitimate
concerns and suggested they contact staff for technical support and advice.
Segelbaum asked if the City will monitor the parking situation. Grimes said yes and
added that Room & Board has done a good job managing their parking demand.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Final Plan for Room & Board PUD #79, Amendment 4,
subject to the following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application, dated September 13, 2013, 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. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director dated October 10, 2013,
shall become part of this approvaL
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
5. 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
October 14, 2013
Page 11
Findinqs:
1. Quality Site Planning. 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. Preservation. 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. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which
includes preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. Genera( Health. The PUD p(an is consistent with preserving and improving the
general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision
and all other PUD ordinance provisions.
8. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Tennant Company PUD #114
Applicant: Tennant Company
Address: 701 Lilac Drive North
Purpose: To allow the applicant to consolidate its multiple properties into one
parcel to enable inter-campus connections.
Commissioner Segelbaum recused himself.
Hogeboom referred to a site plan and noted that Tennant Company located at the
northwest corner of the Highway 100/Highway 55 intersection is requesting a PUD to allow
the consolidation of multiple properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus
connections.
He stated that Tennant Company manufactures indoor and outdoor environmental
cleaning solutions and specialty floor coatings and that Golden Valley is considered their
North American headquarters. He explained that Tennant Company has acquired several
adjacent properties and has hired a planning consultant to create a master plan for its
facility, entitled "One Campus." The first phase of the One Campus plans seeks to create
pedestrian and roadway connections within the site. Driveways and sidewalks cannot
cross property lines unless the property is part of a PUD. He stated that Tennant
Company has no immediate plans to construct new buildings or demolish existing
buildings and that any future site work will require an amendment to the PUD.
Kluchka stated that one of the requirements in the PUD ordinance language refers to
quality site planning and asked how quality site planning is defined. Hogeboom stated that
this situation is unique because the applicant is not starting with a blank slate. They are
taking existing conditions and trying to fit them into the City's requirements. He stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 12
quality site planning considers how the roads work, the building materials used, how the
use interacts with neighboring uses, etc. Grimes added that water quality is another issue
considered and in this case the applicant also needs to have safe access for their
employees. Waldhauser said it seems like there will be some long term improvements the
City might not get without a PUD.
Cera stated that in the applicant's submittal there was talk about new buildings on
properties they don't own. Hogeboom clarified that the applicant is trying to give a big
picture look and what they might consider doing in the future. He stated that only the
properties they currently own are a part of this PUD proposal.
Kluchka said he would like to add a condition to their recommendation to require a
materials review.
Michael Schroeder, LHB, representing the applicant, stated that this is a unique situation
that they are trying to look at long-term to determine how they can accommodate their
needs and how they can integrate their existing properties into one site. He stated that
Tennant is committed to accommodating this site in Golden Valley and they have worked
with staff on their stormwater management plans and that their plan is to make
incremental changes and improvements starting with sidewalk connections. He reiterated
that this PUD plan proposal only includes the land Tennant currently owns.
Kluchka asked if there are plans for Tennant to acquire other properties. Schroeder stated
that Tennant is in no particular hurry to acquire other properties. Larry Spears, Tennant
Company, stated that they have the property they need to accommodate their future plans
without acquiring other properties.
Kluchka asked if there have been any conversations with the neighbors about involving
them in the planning process. Spears stated that they have not had conversations with the
neighboring property owners, other than the City's public hearings, because they don't
want to confuse anyone by having them think that Tennant may be interested in acquiring
their property because they are not.
Kluchka opened the pubiic hearing.
Don Edson, 5804 Olson Memorial Highway, said they've been in this situation before with
Tennant and that they don't need to put in a sidewalk. He said he hopes they are not
planning on putting a driveway in because they are an island and it causes problems. He
said they discovered that there are Comcast lines in is backyard but he cannot get service
from the lines and that he has casually mentioned the price he would sell his property for
to Tennant but he hasn't hearing anything from them. He said he would like to be more in
the loop and asked why his property was listed on the hearing notice he received but the
Damascus Way property wasn't included.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 13
Hogeboom stated that some addresses were inadvertently put on the hearing notice and
that the map shown on the hearing notice was meant to be illustrative however, it was
confusing and will be corrected moving forward.
Kluchka asked the applicant to address the Damascus Way property question. Spears
reiterated that Tennant is not interested in purchasing the Damascus Way property or any
other properties. Schroeder referred to a map and clarified exactly which properties
Tennant owns.
Kluchka asked about the current traffic patterns and what Tennant envisions in the future.
Schroeder referred to a traffic study done in 2009 and noted that this proposal is a much
lesser proposal than was discussed in 2009. He stated that the traffic study may have to
be updated in the future but that this proposal will have no major impact on traffic.
Cera asked when the "farm house" property was purchased by Tennant. Spears said he
thought it was purchased in 2006 or before. Cera asked if anyone has ever approached
Tennant about purchasing their property. Spears said no, but that he would speak with Mr.
Edson.
Kluchka asked if the applicant's plans include updating or maintaining the fencing along
the north side of their property. Spears said yes.
Kluchka asked if any trail connections are planned. Spears said no and added that he has
spoken with Three Rivers Park District but that they are not looking for any connections
from Tennant.
Waldhauser said she doesn't see any reason not to approve this proposal.
Kluchka said he has concerns about this proposal being such a broad vision without
considering the rest of the properties around them. He said if the plans were just about
sidewalk connections, he'd feel more comfortable. Cera said he has the same concerns
and that this proposal seems very preliminary. He said he is also bothered by the
properties that are left being an island and that certain services can't be obtained by those
homeowners.
Grimes said he thinks this proposal is a good way for the City to start discussions on how
there can be better water quality and how the Fire Department's issues can be addressed.
He stated that Tennant is a great corporate partner and that they have been working with
staff to make improvements.
McCarty stated that recommending approval of this proposal won't preclude them from
future review and that this proposal is a good way to get the process started. Waldhauser
agreed that she feels comfortable recommending approval. Grimes added that Tennant
would have to go through the PUD amendment process for any changes they'd want to
make in the future.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 14
Kluchka said he would like to add a condition stating that all final site plans and building
plans are subject to final design review. He questioned if the fence issue and landscaping
issues should be considered now. Grimes stated that as part of the Final PUD plan review
process there are going to be many requirements Tennant will have to meet.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plan for Tennant Company PUD #114 subject to the
following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. The plans submitted September 13, 2013 shall become a part of the approvaL
2. The Memo from Deputy Fire Chief John Crelly to Mark Grimes, Director of Community
Development dated October 4, 2013 shall become a part of the approval.
3. The Memo from the Public Works Department dated October 9, 2013 shall become
part of the approval.
4. A Landscaping Plan will be required as part of the Final PUD Plan approval process.
5. All final site plans and building plans are subject to final design review.
6. All signs must meet the Sign Code.
7. All other applicable local, state and federal laws shall apply.
Findinqs:
1. Quality Site Planning. 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. Preservation. 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. Efficient—Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes
preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the
general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision
and all other PUD ordinance provisions.
Commissioner Segelbaum returned to the meeting.
--Short Recess--
9. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Grimes gave an update on some other planning proposals that are currently going
through the planning process including the 3.9.4 apartment project and the Xenia
apartment project.
Minutes of the Goiden Valley Planning Commission
October 14, 2013
Page 15
10. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
• Discuss 2Q14 Planning Commission meeting dates
Grimes stated that due to the increase in development proposals recently, staff would
like to go back to having two Planning Commission meetings per month. If there are no
agenda items however, the meeting would still be cancelled. The Commissioners
agreed.
11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 pm.
r�
a
harles D. Sege baum,