Loading...
08-24-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 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 24, 2015. Vice Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes July 27, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 27, 2015, minutes as submitted. Commissioner Cera abstained from voting. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 15-01 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Area and Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District (Liberty Crossing Project) Conform to the City’s General Plan of Development Nevinski explained that the City’s HRA has established a redevelopment area and a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district that includes the properties involved in the recently approved Liberty Crossing PUD located near Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. He referred to a map of the redevelopment area and the TIF district and stated that the properties in the TIF District have been reguided and rezoned for High Density Residential. He explained that part of the statutory process requires the Planning Commission to consider the plans and determine if they are compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and regulations, and if they encourage efficient use of infrastructure. Kluchka asked for specifics on what the TIF money will be paying for. Nevinski stated that the TIF Plan outlines a number of issues and that the money will largely be used for infrastructure development including some land purchases to help with flood control. Kluchka asked if the duration of the TIF district is 25 years. Nevinski said the redevelopment district can run for up to 25 years. He added that if the City negotiates an agreement with the developer, or if bonds are paid off earlier, the district can be decertified sooner. Kluchka asked if the TIF amount will be 19 million dollars. Nevinski said the amount is projected to be approximately 6.5 million dollars. Kluchka asked how much money is being contributed by neighboring cities for flood mitigation. Nevinski said that has not yet been determined and will likely be determined after the study of DeCola ponds is completed. Kluchka said there are no guarantees the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 2 City will get any other funding and asked about the cost of flood mitigation as it currently stands. Nevinski said there have been some estimates in the 25 million dollar range. He explained that there is no one solution for dealing with the flood issues in the area. There are many smaller projects that will require partnerships and the various cities working together. Segelbaum questioned if adopting this TIF district would compromise the City’s ability to negotiate with other cities. Nevinski said he doesn’t think so, he said he thinks the development project gives the City opportunities to help fund some of the flood mitigation projects. Segelbaum asked if other cities don’t help with the costs if the funds can be focused on helping Golden Valley flood mitigation. Nevinski said this plan is largely focused on benefitting Golden Valley and will have positive impacts on the flooding that occurs at the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue intersection. He added that the partner cities have contributed to the funding of the study and he thinks they understand the problems. Waldhauser asked if in light of what flood mitigation may cost, the City has ever considered putting the whole area back as flood storage rather than maintaining it, or redeveloping it. Nevinski explained that much of the area in the proposed redevelopment is on high ground and is not filling in the existing flood storage areas. There will be some flood storage area used by the proposed development, but the developer will have to mitigate what they are filling, so the flood storage area is not shrinking and using tax increment will help expand it. Cera asked if blight had to be proven on the properties in the TIF district. Nevinski said tax increment statutes require that specific findings be made regarding blight conditions. He said it is well documented that all of the properties in the TIF district are substandard. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission has to find that the properties are blighted. Nevinski said no, the Planning Commission is considering its conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s desire for high density housing in this area. Kluchka referred to the map of the redevelopment area and questioned why the lines look so gerrymandered. He said he is curious about the properties abutting the ponds and what kinds of opportunities will be available to them. Nevinski said the map was put together based on the shape of the parcels. He explained that the redevelopment area was established how it was because there is expected to be future work in the Pennsylvania Woods area to help with flood conveyance and rate control. Kluchka said he is not confident that much thought was put into the boundaries of the map. He said he is very concerned about the properties surrounding the ponds and the connection to the study. He asked if any of the TIF money will be used to acquire some of these properties as a part of flood mitigation measures. Nevinski stated that the TIF project is focused on activities improving infrastructure related to the proposed development. He said the properties adjacent to the ponds are outside of the redevelopment area and project area and tax increment money will not be spent outside of the redevelopment area. Kluchka asked why the area wasn’t drawn larger. Nevinski said there is a limited amount of dollars available from tax increment so the focus is on infrastructure in the redevelopment area to expand the flood storage and rate control opportunities at the northern end of the area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 3 Waldhauser asked Kluchka if his concern is that some of the properties adjacent to the ponds have regular flooding. Kluchka said he is concerned that a lot of the property owners have received communication indicating that their properties are in a flood plain that they weren’t in before and they are on high alert that their properties may be bought out. Waldhauser asked if these properties have experienced flooding. Kluchka said yes. Segelbaum asked if the study will consider any of the properties outside of the project area to determine if they are prone to flooding. Nevinski said yes and added that in some cases the mitigation will be to remove a home if the homeowner wants to sell, but the City isn’t going to insist that acquisitions occur. Segelbaum asked if TIF funds could be used to redirect the flood water or obtain additional flood storage. Nevinski said yes, by adding more flood storage, expanding the DeCola ponds, working with Dover Hill Apartments and the cities of Crystal and New Hope, more flood water will be held and the impacts will be reduced. Kluchka asked if funding for the acquisition of homes would come from the TIF funds. Nevinski said no, not as part of this proposal. Segelbaum asked if TIF funds could be used for acquiring easements. Nevinski said yes, the City will be working with the Liberty Crossing developer on obtaining easements on the VFW property. Baker asked who would own and maintain the flood storage beneath the Liberty Crossing project. Nevinski said it would be owned and maintained by the City. Cera asked if the developer is responsible for their portion of the flood mitigation on their parcels. Nevinski said yes. Johnson noted that the Redevelopment Plan states that development patterns have resulted in flooding in the area and that the area used to be a lowland and a wetland when nothing has really changed in the last 50 years. He noted that one of the goals listed in the Redevelopment Plan is to minimize the impact of flooding on private property and structures and said he is confused because the plan also states that 25% of the TIF proceeds can be used for infrastructure. He asked if infrastructure means flooding. Nevinski said there is some ability for the City to spend 25% of the increment outside of the TIF district, but within the project area, and that the City would like to put that toward infrastructure improvements. Johnson asked how the flood mitigation is measured or quantified and what “flooding will be minimized” really means and if that is the Planning Commission’s charge to consider. Nevinski explained that the Redevelopment Plan has broad goals and that the more specific information will be in the mitigation study. He added that the Planning Commission’s purview, by statute, is to consider the proposed land use and determine if it meets the goals that the City has established regarding land use. Baker said he thinks the goal regarding minimizing the impact of flooding might be considered part of what the Planning Commission is asked to review. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission hears complaints about flooding during public hearings and this is a great opportunity for the Commission to say something about it. He said he thinks the word accountability should be added to the language in their recommendation because there should be accountability around the things the City says it will do. He said when things do not go according to plan residents don’t have any recourse and that is simply not good enough. Segelbaum said he thinks the mitigation study will be reviewed before it is adopted. Nevinski said the Councils of the three cities will review the study. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 4 Kluchka asked when the developer determined that the only way they would be able to do their development is with TIF money, because he thought the developer had said during the PUD process that they wouldn’t need to use TIF for their proposal. Nevinski stated that as they’ve worked through the plans with the developer they’ve found there is a need to acquire some land and to make some infrastructure improvements in order to provide a greater public benefit. Segelbaum said he thought the developer was responsible for making their site flood neutral. Nevinski said the developer will need some compensation to help offset the costs for the public use of their property for flood storage in the area. Segelbaum asked if the “but for” analysis is important in justifying a TIF district. Nevinski explained that having the “but for TIF, the project wouldn’t go forward analysis” is at the heart of Minnesota TIF law. Kluchka said he understands something might have come up after the PUD public hearing, but he doesn’t want the City to get in trouble because the developer has said on record they don’t need TIF financing. Nevinski clarified that the TIF documents and this public hearing process are helping to show the need for TIF. He added that it is not uncommon for projects to go through several iterations before it is realized that TIF financing will help with the project and with obtaining some public improvements as well. Segelbaum asked if an amount the developer will receive has been determined. Nevinski said that will be determined by the HRA. Blum said it seems as if the development may be feasible for the developer, but not necessarily with all of the flood mitigation that the City wants them to do. Nevinski agreed and said the cost of redeveloping the site is too much without the use of tax increment to help offset the requirements and would not be able to be redeveloped without the assistance of TIF. Waldhauser asked if the developer didn’t have that information earlier in the process. Nevinski said that is correct and there have been ongoing discussions about the options in the area. Baker said he doesn’t want to rewrite history, and that the accurate story is that the developer came to the City with one story, and now they are hearing quite a different story. The developer said they could do their project without TIF and now the Planning Commission is hearing that the City is subsidizing the benefit of the PUD rather than the developer providing that benefit. Kluchka said he hopes there is record of what happened after the Planning Commission’s approval of the PUD. Segelbaum said he thinks the minutes are the record and reflect the fact that there was not a request for TIF earlier. Cera said it sounds like the City will be paying for part of the developers cost of flood mitigation and anything more is yet to be determined. Baker said it sounds like the developer is not doing what they offered to do. Nevinski said the developer has an approved plan and part of the conditions of that approved plan is that they will have to deal with the flood mitigation. He said staff has thought all along that this is a good project because it starts to create opportunities for dealing with flood storage issues. As the project has moved forward the developer is realizing the costs of this redevelopment. Baker agreed that the PUD plans were approved in concept, and if the developer decided they needed more help, that is fine and is a part of the process. Baker questioned who initiates TIF and how TIF districts come about because he can think of many other projects that might have benefited from using TIF. Nevinski said the City looks at its goals and objectives and what it would take to accomplish them. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 5 explained that staff has somewhat driven the process in this case because of the opportunity for public improvements that will benefit the City as a whole. Segelbaum asked if the HRA is involved in the development of TIF financing. Nevinski said yes, the HRA approves the contracts and agreements and has certain powers that the City Council does not. Johnson referred to the last paragraph on page three of the Redevelopment Plan where it states that the study will document the cause of the flooding and identify specific measures to reduce the flooding in the area by creating more flood storage. He said that the solution seems pre-ordained and he would expect that the study would find out what is going on and then propose solutions. He questioned what happens if the flood storage isn’t enough and there continue to be insurance claims and complaints about flooding in the area. He asked if the study is geared to flood storage and not abatement because it seems stilted. Nevinski said the current flood mitigation study is the second part of a high level study started in 2010 that was initially done to help understand the issues and where there might be opportunities to help solve those issues. The second phase of the study will be more detailed and will analyze the options, how to go about solving the issues, and what it will cost. Johnson asked if the solution to all of the issues is more flood storage. Nevinski said flood storage is a broad term for many different solutions, including ponds, reducing impervious surface, studying existing storm systems, etc. Johnson said the issue really is how to keep water out of a swamp/wetland area and he questions if the City should really being doing this. Nevinski said it isn’t really a matter of keeping water out, it is more about how to manage the water going in. Kluchka said he thinks it is true that there are a lot of ways to mitigate the water and many of them are being addressed in the proposed development. He questioned if FEMA money could be used to help with flood mitigation. Kluchka asked if there are any affordable units required in this TIF district proposal. Nevinski said this is not a housing district, its purpose is redeveloping the properties and the project meets the statutory requirements for a redevelopment district. Kluchka noted that goal number five in the Redevelopment Plan states that there should be a plan for growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework and the City is always being told to provide enough affordable housing units. Nevinski said this project will provide different types of housing within the community. Johnson referred to the last statement of objectives listed on page five of the Redevelopment Plan that refers to constructing or acquiring facilities deemed desirable for the development of the Project Area and asked what that means. Nevinski said the language in the Redevelopment Plan comes out of HRA statutes and that the HRA is the implementer of plans and in some cities the HRA provides certain types of housing and can step in to get a property ready for development if needed. Johnson asked if this objective is applicable to this proposal. Waldhauser noted that redevelopment projects are required to meet one or more of the objectives, not all of them. Blum referred to page eight of the Redevelopment Plan and noted that the definition of “Project Area” says Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area instead of Winnetka & Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Project Area. He referred to the definition of “TIF Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 6 Act” and noted that the statute numbers quoted there are different than the statute numbers referred to in the TIF Plan. He referred to section a. in the TIF plan where it states the City’s estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will increase without the use of tax increment financing is anywhere from $0 (except for a small amount for annual appreciation of land value) and questioned if something is missing before the parenthesis. Blum asked if there are bus routes on Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. Nevinski said yes. Blum said in looking at how the TIF and Redevelopment Plans conform to the Comprehensive Plan that could be considered an efficient use of infrastructure. Nevinski agreed. Blum said on the east side of the proposed development there has been discussion of changing part of Rhode Island Avenue to a grassy area. Nevinski said yes, and explained that part of the overall project includes reducing the amount of impervious surface. Blum said he understands there will also be some bike/pedestrian trails that will go through that area as well which is also efficient use of infrastructure and will provide some needed connectivity. Nevinski agreed. Blum said the Comprehensive Plan also has a goal of providing a variety of housing and noted that the proposed development will have different types of housing including townhomes and apartments. Nevinski said yes, there are a variety of housing types proposed, however they are all market rate rental units. Blum said he also understands that right now flood waters aren’t managed very well in this area and asked if that is correct. Nevinski said that is correct and that the VFW parcel has documented flood issues. Blum said other than the proposed development there are no other plans for this area to take care of the existing problems. Nevinski agreed. Blum asked if there are public safety concerns with the flooding in this area if the flooding is significant enough. Nevinski said there is a concern that public safety vehicles would not be able to get through that intersection during a flood event. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission just needs to adopt the proposed resolution or if they need to make additional findings. Nevinski said that by adopting the resolution the Planning Commission is making the findings that the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF plan conform to the Comprehensive Plan, are compatible with the City’s regulations, and encourage the efficient use of infrastructure. MOVED by Kluchka, and seconded by Baker to adopt Resolution No. 15-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Area and Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District (Liberty Crossing Project) conform to the City’s General Plan of Development. Kluchka said he thinks it will be valuable for the HRA and City Council to review the minutes regarding this item and the Liberty Crossing PUD proposal. Johnson said he intends to vote no on the resolution because there is nothing measurable in the plans and he doesn’t understand what the outcome is supposed to be. Segelbaum realized that the public hearing was not held for this item as required. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 7 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked for the motion to be restated. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker, and motion carried 6 to 1 to adopt Resolution No. 15-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Redevelopment Area and Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District (Liberty Crossing Project) conform to the City’s General Plan of Development. Commissioner Johnson voted no. 3. Consideration of Resolution No. 15-02 Finding that the Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District (Cornerstone Creek Project) Conforms to the City’s General Plan of Development Nevinski stated that Cornerstone Creek is a proposed project within the City’s existing Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area consisting of affordable housing for adults with developmental disabilities. He explained that a TIF housing district is proposed to be established for this project and that the Planning Commission needs to review the plans to consider if the TIF District conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He referred to a map of the Project Area and the proposed TIF District and noted that the existing uses on the properties to be redeveloped include a single family home and an office building. He added that both parcels have been rezoned and reguided to High Density Residential to allow the proposed redevelopment to occur. Segelbaum asked if this proposed TIF district would overlap the other TIF district in the area. Nevinski said no, they are two different TIF districts in the same project area. Segelbaum asked if the TIF funds can be pooled. Nevinski said no, they have to be operated independently of one another. Baker asked if any other TIF districts are anticipated in this project area. Nevinski said there could be in the future, but currently there are no others TIF districts planned. Waldhauser asked if the other TIF district in the area will be used to fund sidewalks and other public improvements. Nevinski said yes, and explained that because of the additional housing proposed in this area, providing sidewalks, pedestrian scale lighting, and safety improvements of the existing Highway 55 slip ramp are all part of the public improvements that will be funded in part by TIF dollars from the Golden Villas (hello.) proposal. Waldhauser asked how the tax benefit will be used in the Cornerstone Creek project. Nevinski said the benefit will go to the developer and that the public purpose is the creation of affordable housing. Segelbaum asked if it would make sense to change the project area to have them coincide with the TIF district. Nevinski stated that typically the project area tends to be broader so various things can be done within the project area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 8 Waldhauser asked about the five-year rule and tax increment pooling. Nevinski said the five-year rule and pooling reference relate to the timing that activities need to commence within a tax increment district. Blum said the way he understands TIF financing is that the City is making a finding that without TIF financing a reasonable development would not occur so the City is not pledging tax money that is here today or tomorrow, but it is tax money that would not be there except for if this project goes forward. Nevinski said it is an investment in the future and at some point the City will see catalytic development around the TIF site. After the TIF district expires the City will then have those new taxes that it wouldn’t have but for the TIF district. He added that with tax increment the tax level currently being paid will continue to be paid, so taxes aren’t being reduced there just isn’t an immediate gain in the increase in taxes. Blum said there are also other benefits to the City as well including the development of this highly visible gateway area. Nevinski agreed. Blum referred to the goals in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and stated that one of the goals is to strive for at least 10% of the city’s housing supply to be designed for seniors and asked if this development will provide for seniors. Nevinski said this development is not exclusively for seniors. Segelbaum stated that the proposed community area could benefit seniors. Blum said another goal is to highlight commercial corridors and asked if this proposal would be in line with that goal. Nevinski said yes. Kluchka asked if the potential budget is 1.5 million over 25 years. Nevinski said that is correct. Kluchka asked if the developer has said how much money they will need for their development. Nevinski said Cornerstone Creek is also benefitting from a variety of County and State funds. Kluchka asked why notification was sent to the Hopkins School District. Nevinski stated that the City is statutorily required to send notice to the County and the School District to get comments and feedback because they benefit from taxes and could see an impact in their tax capacity. Johnson stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the Cornerstone Creek PUD proposal the applicant stated that they were thinking about renting out their community center space. He said it seems odd to him that they could charge for access when there are tax dollars being used to fund it. Nevinski clarified that the community center space will be a separate parcel and will not be a part of the TIF district. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 15-02 finding that the Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District (Cornerstone Creek Project) conforms to the City’s General Plan of Development with the comment that the community center portion of the Cornerstone Creek project is excluded from the TIF district. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 9 4. Discuss proposed amendments to the PUD Section of the Zoning Code. Goellner stated that staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on some proposed changes to the PUD Section of the Zoning Code. She discussed several past PUD proposals and the challenges with the current PUD process including: a cumbersome timeframe, difficulties in coordinating multiple plan submissions, and a decreased focus on a public purpose when approving a PUD. She stated that the goals for the proposed changes are to simplify the process and clarify the requirements because creating a new PUD and approving a major amendment to an existing PUD can take six months. She explained that with the proposed new process it could still take up to six months to create a new PUD, but it would reduce the time it takes for a major amendment to three months. A minor amendment would take approximately two months, and administrative amendments would be allowed. Goellner referred to the current PUD amendment requirements and stated that the proposed new requirements would be more specific and more generous with the projects that qualify as a minor amendment. She stated that staff is proposing that a major amendment be required when the proposed amendment significantly affects the original design and intention, and requires more public review. Minor amendments would be required when there are less significant changes and the use meets the underlying zoning requirements and administrative amendments would be allowed when the proposed amendment is in regard to items already reviewed administratively if the property is not in a PUD such as: utilities, interior building remodels, grading and erosion control, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and architectural elevations. She added that if the original design intent is proposed to be altered, staff can deem the amendment a minor amendment and the applicant would go through the minor amendment process instead. Kluchka said he likes the idea of streamlining the process, but he wants to make sure the City is getting something better out of it. Waldhauser said one of the things the City would get out of it is the streamlining of the process for staff as well, and that PUD plans would be submitted at the beginning of the process with much more detail. Segelbaum agreed with streamlining the process and said that many times there isn’t much difference between the preliminary plans and the final plans. Kluchka said if the City streamlines the process he wants to improve the quality of the process at the same time. He said he would like the Planning Commission to have more specific direction or powers in order to remove some of the vague issues that they’ve been told aren’t in their purview, or have felt pushed to approve in the past. Segelbaum said he worries about a proposal similar to the Menard’s PUD where it was considered a major amendment, even though the entire site was demolished and rebuilt. He said that type of situation is different than a proposal to just add a new wing on a building like the recent Struthers PUD amendment. Baker asked if there might be a way to reduce the definition of a PUD amendment and when necessary, require the creation of a new PUD. Cera said he is bothered by how close a major PUD amendment is to a creating a new PUD. He asked if the City can consider some major PUD amendment proposals as new PUD proposals instead. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 10 Johnson asked how this will change customer behavior so the PUD plans submitted are what is expected up front. Goellner said the proposed PUD changes will give staff the ability to get applicants to provide better detail at the beginning of the process. Segelbaum said it would be asking the developer to invest a lot up front without hearing from any City officials. Goellner stated that developers enjoy the certainty and they expect having to submit detailed plans. The Commission discussed various proposed uses that could be considered a major PUD amendments versus a minor PUD amendment such as the change in use, the introduction of a new use, changes in massing, changes in impervious surface, and traffic issues. Kluchka said the key issue to him is who is defining what a significant change in building elevation is and how “original design intent” is defined. Goellner explained that the Code currently has language regarding “good design” but there is no definition of design or any design guidelines. Kluchka said he always has to remind the Commission that they need to look at design and he would love the PUD requirements to have “more teeth” when it comes to reviewing design. Goellner stated that creating design guidelines were not part of the direction given by City Council. Baker said the Commission should push back at the City Council when it comes to design standards. Waldhauser questioned if construction standards could be imposed on all PUDs similar to the standards in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Kluchka stated that the City doesn’t need to have design standards to have good architecture. Goellner said she thinks the term “good design” is too subjective and would be hard to enforce without have some specific standards. Cera stated that it might be easier to say what materials the City doesn’t want to see used. Waldhauser referred to the proposal to allow an amendment to be considered a minor amendment if it is a use that is permitted in the underlying zoning district. She said that concerns her because a PUD could be approved for one use and the applicant could switch to another use that might not have been approved in the first place. She added that she would also like the Planning Commission to see amendments that include changes in landscaping and changes that bring the amount of impervious surface up to the maximum amount allowed. Kluchka said he would like to require that applicants have a neighborhood communications plan in place before, during and after a project is built, and he would also like to require that HVAC systems be screened, and that a snow removal plan is submitted at the time of application. Zimmerman stated those items might be better as a conditions of approval on a case-by-case basis rather than a requirement at the time a PUD amendment application is submitted. He explained that the feedback staff is looking for at this point is what would trigger a minor PUD amendment versus a major PUD amendment. Kluchka noted that the word “encouraged” is used in the PUD language and he would like that changed to “required.” He said he would also like to add language about “architectural significance” as well as requiring color and sample boards to be submitted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 11 Segelbaum asked the Commission how they felt about the public amenities list that was in the agenda packet. Waldhauser asked how the point system works. Goellner explained that some cities give public amenities a point value and require developers to have a certain number of points. Segelbaum noted that applicants could contribute to a fund for public amenities instead. Baker said he found the list very compelling. Kluchka questioned if language regarding architectural significance could be added to a public amenity list. Cera said he is not sure a point system is the way to go. Segelbaum agreed and said the list they were shown goes too far. Waldhauser asked if the City could just enforce the public benefit requirement it currently has. Baker said he thinks the City should be asking for more public benefits and set the bar higher. Segelbaum expressed concern about the public amenities requirement squelching development and said he is worried developers will just go elsewhere. Johnson questioned the problem they are trying to fix. Baker said the City isn’t getting any public benefit when approving PUDs. Johnson questioned if the City really wants the things listed on the example in the agenda packet. Baker said he thinks Golden Valley would be a better community if it had gotten some of the things on that list and that they haven’t done a good job in getting something back from PUDs. Segelbaum noted that the City gets property developed that it wants developed. Baker said he’d like to hold out for better. Cera suggested the list focus on outdoor public amenities rather than indoor amenities. Kluchka suggested the public amenities include things like open space, community gardens, affordable housing, public art, informational displays, preservation, LEED certification, and bicycle/pedestrian connections. Blum said he would like bicycle/pedestrian connections to be required, not optional. Kluchka said he would also like to find ways to encourage healthy living such as stairs instead of elevators. Goellner said she would work on incorporating the items discussed into proposed new Zoning Code language and bring it back to the Planning Commission to review. 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the City Council has been engaged in the light rail station area planning and the municipal consent processes and will be scheduling a workshop and another open house in the future. Waldhauser asked if the City is behind in starting work on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Zimmerman explained that work will start on the Comprehensive Plan Update when Metropolitan Council Systems Statements have been received. 6. Other Business  Council Liaison Report No report was given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 24, 2015 Page 12 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 pm. � John Kluch , Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant