08-25-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
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 25, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and
Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative
Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Baker and Cera were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
July 14, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
July 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Segelbaum referred to page 11 of the July 14 minutes and asked if it was him, or
someone else, who questioned how the Golden Valley Senior Living proposal would
affect Schuller's. He asked that it be clarified that a neighbor asked that question during
the public hearing. Segelbaum referred to page 14 of the July 14 minutes and noted that
his first name, rather than his last, was used in the third paragraph.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the July 14, 2014, and the July 28, 2014, minutes with the above noted
corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision Amendment— 221 Sunnyridge
Lane — Kate's Woods — SU08-11
Applicant: David Knaeble
Address: 221 Sunnyridge Lane
Purpose: To revise the interior lot line of the recently appraved Preliminary Plat.
Zimmerman stated that the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of 221 Sunnyridge Lane was
approved by the City Council on July 15. At that same meeting, the lot width definition was
amended, and is now in effect so the applicant is proposing a revision to the interior lot line
to improve the shape of both of the lots. He explained that the applicant is proposing to call
the interior lot line a side yard property line instead of a rear yard property line, and that staff
would like the Planning Commission to interpret the language in the Zoning Code to help
determine if it should be considered a side or rear lot line. He referred to a site plan of the
property and noted that that there is a deck on the existing house that must be removed or
modified in order to conform to the Zoning Code requirements. He stated that if the lot line is
determined to be a rear lot line, staff recommends denial of the revision as the proposed
subdivision would be in conflict with the requirements of the zoning district. If the lot line is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 2
determined to be a side lot line, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions
recommended by Planning and Engineering.
Waldhauser asked how the lot depth is calculated since that is what is used to determine
the rear setback. Zimmerman stated that the rear yard setback requirement is 20% of the
average lot depth.
Kluchka asked why the interpretation issue couldn't be addressed during the final platting
process. Zimmerman stated that the City Attorney thought that the proposed change was
significant enough, and the Zoning Code is ambiguous enough, that it should be brought
back to the Planning Commission for review. Kluchka questioned if the plan could be
modified slightly to not be so extreme with either the side yard setback or rear yard setback
location.
Peter Knaeble, Applicant, handed out additional plans and stated that his intent is to rebuild
or modify the existing deck to keep it out of the setback areas. He stated that the approved
preliminary plat has really crooked property lines, and he clearly heard from the Planning
Commission and the City Council that they would like that line to be straightened out. He
stated that the only practical way to do this subdivision without a variance is to call the
interior lot line a side yard property line, rather than a rear yard property line. He added that
calling that property line a side yard property line will also allow the existing home to remain,
which is a goal of the City Council. He showed examples of similar subdivisions, and
discussed the side yard property lines, and rear yard property lines in those examples. He
stated that when he first started considering this proposal he was told that there could be a
variable rear yard setback line. He added that on issues of ordinance ambiguity, the
common court precedent is to interpret it to the advantage of the landowner.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Blum referred to the site plan and note that the property line in question seems to bend at
the back corner of the house, so the other properties the applicant referred to are a bit
different than the subject property.
Waldhauser stated that if the lot had been split without the existing house on it, the interior
lot line would have besn considered to be a side yard lot line, so it doesn't seem logical to
call it a rear yard lot line at this point. She said this new proposal is an improvement over the
other options, and is preserving the existing house. She said she thinks the Planning
Commission would mostly be in favor of straightening out the lot line.
Segelbaum said the property line in questions looks like a rear lot line. He agreed that if the
house were not there, it would be a different story, but he thinks the intent of the Code is to
have unbuilt property in back of the house. He said he also agreed that the Planning
Commission wanted the lot to not be such an odd shape, but he wishes there were another
way to draw the property line without necessitating a variance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 3
Kluchka questioned if it is fair to say that the Planning Commission asked that the property
line be straightened, when they didn't know about the rear yard versus side yard issue.
Waldhauser stated that the lot line could be re-drawn and there would not be a backyard on
Lot 1 at all.
Segelbaum said he is concerned about setting a precedent in how the Planning
Commission interprets this issue, and how future proposals would use it going forward.
Kluchka said he is not in agreement with calling the interior lot line a rear yard property line.
Blum agreed, and reiterated that this proposal is not like the pie shaped examples they were
shown, because they clearly start as two parallel side lot lines.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and motion carried 3 to 1 to recommend denial
of the preliminary plat amendment. Commissioner Waldhauser voted no.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 601 Boone Avenue North
— TruStone Financial — CU-137
Applicant: TruStone Financial
Address: 601 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate a new credit union with three drive-
thru lanes in the Commercial zoning district.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in
order to operate a new credit union with three drive-thru lanes. He noted that a CUP was
approved for this location in 2008, but the project was not constructed, so a new CUP is
now required. He referred to a site plan and explained the applicants request to construct
a one-story building with three drive-thru lanes located on the southeast corner of the
building. He stated that 19 parking spaces are required, and the applicant is proposing 31
spaces. He added that based on the review of the application, and the evaluation of the
factors listed in the Zoning Code, staff is recommending approval of the proposed CUP.
Kluchka asked if there are any material differences between this proposal and the
proposal approved in 2008. Zimmerman stated that the building is slightly smaller in this
proposal.
Waldhauser asked if conditions could be added regarding landscaping and drainage.
Zimmerman stated that Conditional Use Permits really only consider the land use.
Waldhauser noted that there seems to be a lot of signage proposed. Zimmerman stated
that they will be required to follow the City's sign code requirements.
Kluchka asked about snow storage on the site. Zimmerman suggested the applicant
address that issue, but he assumes snow would be stored on the south side of the site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 4
Segelbaum noted that the first finding is the demonstrated need for the proposed use. He
asked if that is pertaining only to the drive-thru windows, or the entire use. Zimmerman
said it pertains to the entire use.
Sean Raboin, HTG Architects, stated that the proposed new building will be slightly
smaller than the one proposed in 2008. He stated that this should be a good fit, and a
nice use for this property. He referred to the question regarding snow storage and stated
that snow will be stored on the north part of the site, or it will be hauled off-site.
Waldhauser asked if the applicant feels that they need as much parking as they are
proposing. Raboin said yes, and added that this will be a very busy location.
Segelbaum asked why they need to have three drive-thru lanes. Raboin stated that 10
years ago four or five drive-thru lanes was typical, but now banks like to have two drive-
up windows and one drive-up ATM.
Blum asked how the parking at this property compares with the parking at their current
location. Raboin stated that they have more parking at their current facility, but it is a
much larger building.
Segelbaum asked if the applicant will continue to use their existing facility. Raboin said
no.
Kluchka asked if the timing of this project is related to the Douglas Drive reconstruction
project. Raboin said he didn't know, but he thinks the economy has played a part as well.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Steve Schmidgall, 6534 Olympia Street, said he hopes there will be very little EIFS used
and if so, not at grade, so it wilt continue to look good.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka said he knows this will be a busy location. He suggested that the applicant bring
elevations and a material list to the City Council meeting.
Segelbaum stated that more drive-thru lanes would also mean fewer cars stacking.
Waldhauser said the proposal looks reasonable. She said she hopes some landscaping
could be done along Highway 55, and that run-off from the parking lot could be captured
in rain gardens, or some other system.
MOVED by Blum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 601 Boone Avenue North to allow
a credit union with three drive-thru lanes in the Commercial zoning district subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 5
Findin s:
1. TruStone will be relocating from their current location at 6500 Olson Memorial
Highway and will likely maintain if not grow their existing base of customers.
2. A financial institution is consistent with the Commercial designation of this property
on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Staff anticipates the newly constructed building would not have a negative impact on
the surrounding properties. In fact, the addition of a quality building to the vacant site
is anticipated to have a positive effect.
4. As part of the original submission in 2008, a traffic study was done for this use and
anticipated no concerns. Since this proposal is a slightly scaled back version of the
original plan, Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding
areas.
5. The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at
the location.
6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels.
7. There would be some pollution caused by the idling of vehicles waiting to be served
in the drive-thru lanes. Due to the surrounding land uses and the proximity to
Highway 55, this increase would not be significant.
8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Based on the site plans submitted and the architectural design of other TruStone
Financial buildings that will be used as models for this structure, the visual quality of
the property will be enhanced.
10.Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The
location is a commercial area with good access that can handle any additional traffic.
Conditions:
1. The plans by HTG Architects submitted on July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this
approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief John
Crelly to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated August 18, 2014, shall
become part of this approval.
3. A bicycle rack shall be added to the property providing for a minimum of four spaces.
4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
4. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development
(PUD) — Carousel Automobiles (Porsche Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3
Applicant: Twin Cities Automotive (Porsche)
Address: 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose: To construct a new Porsche facility on the west side of the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 6
Zimmerman stated that the Preliminary PUD plan for this proposal was approved by the City
Council in July, and the applicant is now starting the Final PUD approval process. He
referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to modify the existing parking
area and to construct a new Porsche of Minneapolis building located to the west of the
existing Audi building. He stated that since the Preliminary Plan stage the applicant has
made slight modifications to the parking lot layout and the number of parking spaces.
They've also made adjustments to the outdoor lighting levels. He discussed the design of
the building and stated that it meets the setback requirements of the underlying Commercial
zoning district, and there will be no change in the amount of impervious surFace because
the new building will replace an existing paved area.
Zimmerman discussed parking on the site. He stated that the current number of parking
spaces on the site is 633 spaces. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of
parking spaces to 557 which is a reduction of 76 spaces overall. The Preliminary PUD plan
reduced the parking by 64 spaces. He stated that the applicant is also proposing 37 parking
spaces that would encroach approximately five feet into the front yard setback, and
approximately 34 display spaces that would fall entirely within the 35 foot front yard setback
area along Wayzata Boulevard.
Waldhauser questioned if condition #5 in Zimmerman's staff report regarding the relocation
of the parking spaces along the south portion of the lot near the proposed building, should
be removed. Zimmerman said yes, condition #5 from his memo should be removed.
Waldhauser asked if the triangular shaped, landscaped island shown on the plans is new.
Nguyen Hoang, Baker Associates, 150 South Fifth Street, Architect for the project, said that
landscape island is not new and was shown on the preliminary plans.
Kluchka asked about snow storage. Wayne Pisinski, Twin Cities Automotive, Applicant,
stated that they might melt the snow on-site.
Blum asked what they did to address the lighting on the site. Pisinski said they switched to
LED lighting. Hoang added that the raised the light poles as well to provide more even
lighting.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for PUD #95, Amendment #3, Carousel
Automobiles subject to the following findings and conditions:
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 25, 2014
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 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 prepared by Baker Associates and submitted with the application on
July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated August 18, 2014,
shall become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the
Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated August 18,
2014, shall become a part of this approval.
4. Parking in the lot south of Wayzata Boulevard shall be limited to inventory
vehicles. Employee parking in this area will not be permitted.
5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances,
regulations, or laws with authority over this development.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review — Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Golden Villas — PUD #118
Applicant: Golden Villas, LLC
Address: 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To construct a seven-story, 162-unit apartment building.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing to develop a seven-story, 162 unit, market
rate apartment building on the 2.57 acre site. He stated that the applicant is also seeking
TIF assistance to help make the project financially feasible. He noted that 9130 Olson
Memorial Highway contains a small, one-story office building, and 9220 Olson Memorial
Highway contains the vacant bowling alley,
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained that the proposed new building will be
centrally located on the site. He stated that there will be two access points on Golden Valley
Road, and a sidewalk will be constructed along Golden Valley Road. He referred to the
parking on the site, and noted that the majority of the parking will be underground or
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 8
enclosed on the ground floor level. There will be surface parking on three sides of the
building and a 20-foot wide fire drive aisle along the rear of the building. He discussed some
of the features and amenities including, eight units with individual entrances, secure bicycle
parking/storage, a pool, and terrace among others.
Zimmerman noted that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary PUD plan subject
to the Engineering and Fire Department comments including: the relocation of parking out of
the right-of-way, additional work on the stormwater system, the number and location of fire
hydrants, and radio operability for emergency responders within the building.
Kluchka asked if the applicant would be installing the sidewalk along Golden Valley Road.
Zimmerman said yes.
Kluchka asked if parking is allowed on Golden Valley Road. Zimmerman said he wasn't
sure, but that he would find out.
Segelbaum asked for clarification on the number of stories. Zimmerman stated that there
are six stories above ground, and one underground.
Segelbaum noted that the nearby JHAP property has TIF financing and asked if that will
impact this proposal. Zimmerman said the properties are viewed independently.
Segelbaum referred to the number of parking spaces and the amount of impervious surface
and asked if it seems reasonable to allow less parking, but more impervious surface.
Zimmerman stated that if there are ways to redesign the 20-foot wide fire lane, there will be
more options to explore ways to reduce the amount of impervious surface.
Bill Stoddard, Applicant, stated that the former Tiburon project proposed for this site was six
levels. He decided to have one level of underground parking which made it possible to
reduce the height. He noted that on the street side of the building he is proposing some
direct access units. He discussed other senior living facilities that he had developed in
Florida and discussed several of the amenities he plans for this project including a day spa,
"car to go" options, and conservation measures including roof top solar and water
conservation efforts. He said he loves this gateway location, but he can't do the project
without TIF. He referred to a site plan and stated that the structural coverage on the site will
be 42.7% which inclucies the building, parking areas, and the fire lane.
Waldhauser asked Stoddard if he has done other project in this area, and who will be
managing this project once it is built. Stoddard said he has done some developments in
Minnetonka and in a few other locations. He said he will be interviewing management
companies to manage the property.
Segelbaum asked Stoddard if he will continue to own the property after the building is
constructed, or if he plans to sell it. Stoddard said it is his intent to keep the property for a
long time.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 9
Segelbaum asked Stoddard if he thinks the proposed 223 parking will be adequate.
Stoddard said he believes that amount of parking will be adequate. He added that he can
add more parking spaces on the site if needed. He is also proposing bicycle and moped
spaces and he wants to really push the "car to go" option.
Blum asked if the moped spaces count in the overall number of parking spaces. Stoddard
said no, and added that he is proposing 20 outdoor scooter spaces. Zimmerman agreed
that the scooter spaces are viewed differently than regular parking spaces.
Segelbaum asked Stoddard about the timeline of this project. Stoddard said this project will
take approximately 13 months to construct, and he hopes to break ground next summer.
Kluchka said he is interested in a sidewalk connection to let pedestrians know they are
welcome to walk on the property, not just past it. He added that he would also like to see a
high level of design and quality in this gateway location. Stoddard said he typically uses 1/3
brick, 1/3 panels and 1/3 Hardie board siding, or something similar, to break up the look.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Kris Soder, Brookview Condominiums, said she is concerned about the traffic impacts from
this proposaL
Naomi Gardner, Brookview Condominiums, asked if this entire project consists of rental
units. Kluchka said yes.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked about the traffic issues. Zimmerman stated that a traffic study was done for
the previously approved Tiburon project, and that this proposal is not much different.
However, staff will continue to work with the applicant on ways to improve any traffic issues.
Segelbaum asked about the status of the Highway 55 exit ramp. Zimmerman stated that the
slip ramp reconstruction was part of the Tiburon proposal, but it is not part of this proposal.
Segelbaum said he thought the ramp project was part of the TIF district proposal.
Zimmerman stated that there is a redevelopment area that includes several parcels, but
each project is different.
Kluchka said he would like to see some intersection improvements, and he wants to see
what the additional traffic will do to the wait times, not just the capacity issues. Zimmerman
stated that the HRA will be reviewing this proposal. He added that one concern staff has is
that MnDOT could close the slip ramp. He said the City does not want all the traffic to have
to go to Boone Avenue.
Segelbaum asked if there will be a neighborhood meeting held. Zimmerman said yes, the
PUD process requires that a neighborhood meeting be held.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 2014
Page 10
Kluchka suggested a condition be added regarding the review of design and materials.
Segelbaum said he would like to add that language stating that review should also occur on
the items not shown in the current plans in order to preserve the City's rights. Waldhauser
agreed that it is difficult to tell at this point if the applicant and Planning Commission are
aiming toward the same goals.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #118, Golden Villas subject to
the following findings and conditions:
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.
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 prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc., submitted with the application
on July 25 and August 11, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering
Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated August 18, 2014, shall
become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated August 18, 2014, shall
become a part of this approval.
4. The final design of materials and landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to Final Plan approval.
5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
6. A park dedication fee of $31,680 (2% of the estimated land value) shall be paid prior
to approval of the Final Plat.
7. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 118" in its title.
8. 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
August 25, 2014
Page 11
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Kluchka gave an update on the most recent Community Center Task Force meeting
where developing the current driving range and removing the 9-hole area were
discussed.
7. Other Business
• Update Regarding Council/Manager Meeting
Zimmerman gave an update on the August 21 Council/Manager meeting. He stated that
the Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding
recycling centers, so he will start working on ordinance language and bring it back to the
Planning Commission for review.
Zimmerman stated that at the same meeting the Council discussed putting a
moratorium on all Single Family R-1 subdivision proposals in order to allow them time to
discuss large lot requirements, aesthetics, and the community feeling regarding
subdivisions.
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant