09-28-15 PC Minutes
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 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,
September 28, 2015. Vice Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Melissa Sonnek, and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
August 24, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page nine and asked for clarification
regarding the last sentence. Zimmerman explained that the last sentence is referring to
the administrative PUD amendment process and that if staff feels an administrative
amendment should be considered a minor PUD amendment instead of administrative
then it would go through the minor PUD amendment process.
MOVED
by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve
the August 24, 2015, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP #140) – Peaceful
Valley Montessori Academy – 6500 Olson Memorial Highway
Applicant: Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy
Addresses: 6500 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow for a childcare/preschool facility in the Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District.
Sonnek stated that the property is guided Commercial/Office on the General Land Use
Plan Map and is zoned Business and Professional Offices. She explained the applicant’s
request to relocate their existing childcare/preschool facility to this location. She referred
to a site plan of the property and discussed the proposed site access, visitor parking,
employee parking, main entrance and play area. She added that the applicant will also be
constructing a sidewalk on the southwest corner of their property to provide egress from
the building and noted that the applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of
the building.
Sonnek referred to the parking on the property and explained that the requirement for the
proposed use is 1 space for every 6 participants and the property will have a surplus of
parking with 89 stalls. She discussed the traffic generated by the proposed use and
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 2
stated that staff does not anticipate a significant change in traffic from the previous use
(TruStone Financial) but rather a shift in peak hours to 8 am and 4 pm.
Sonnek stated that the applicant is expected to serve 65 children when they open in
January with a total capacity of 160 children. She stated that based on review of the
application materials and evaluation of the factors used when considering a Conditional
Use Permit staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request.
Kluchka referred to the recommended condition regarding the number of clients allowed
and questioned if the City needs to limit the number of clients since the state license sets
the number of clients the applicant is allowed to have.
Waldhauser stated that there were plans for a play area on the north side of the building
and asked if that is still an option. Sonnek stated that the applicant’s current proposal only
has one play area on the south side of the property.
Segelbaum referred to the three entrances along Country Club Drive, two of which appear
to be access to the former bank drive-through lanes and asked if there is another use
planned for the entrances. Sonnek noted that two of the three entrances provide access
to the employee parking area. Segelbaum asked if there is bus traffic. Sonnek said she
will defer that question to the applicant.
Segelbaum asked if there are other zoning districts that allow childcare as a permitted
use. Zimmerman stated that childcare is only allowed as a conditional use in certain
zoning districts and is not a permitted use in any district.
Kluchka asked if there will be a communication plan with the parents regarding which
streets should be used for access. Sonnek said that has not been discussed with the
applicant.
Johnson referred to the proposed new sidewalk on the southwest corner and asked if the
large tree currently in that location will be removed. Kluchka asked how much of the
sidewalk exists, how much is new, and where it will go. Sonnek said 491 square feet of
sidewalk will be installed. Zimmerman added that the sidewalk is on the applicant’s
property and is required for egress from the building.
Katie Wagoner, Applicant, stated that their plan, due to overwhelming demand, is to
expand from their 30 student facility to this new location. She said their vision is to serve
families with different aged children in one facility. She explained that parents will pick up
and drop off their kids and that there will be no bus traffic.
Cera referred to the existing drive through on the north side of the property and asked if
there are future plans for that area. Summer Picha, Applicant, stated that that they would
like to create a second playground area in the future but it will currently be left as is.
Waldhauser referred to the proposed fence on the south side of the property and asked if
it is meant for privacy or for safety. Wagoner stated that it will be a six foot tall fence to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 3
provide a noise buffer, privacy, and a secret garden. She referred to Commissioner
Johnson’s question regarding the tree currently located near where the proposed
sidewalk will be and stated that the tree will remain. Kluchka noted that the fence around
the proposed orchard area will be chain link and asked why it couldn’t be the same
material that will be used along the playground. Wagoner said they want people to be
able to see the orchard and that the privacy fence is for the secret garden area. Kluchka
said the chain link fence may detract from the aesthetics.
Cera noted that the applicant currently has 30 clients and will be licensed for 160 children
and asked if they have a five year plan. Picha said they have a two year plan. Cera asked
if there are enough qualified teachers. Wagoner stated that there is a Montessori training
facility in St. Paul so the area is saturated with qualified teachers.
Segelbaum referred to the three access points and questioned what route people will take
and if it would make more sense to enter in the middle driveway. Picha stated that the
middle driveway accesses the existing drive through and doesn’t allow access to the
parent parking area.
Kluchka asked about signage. Picha said they would like to use the existing time and
temperature sign and change the existing sign on the building to say “your neighborhood
Montessori” instead of “your neighborhood credit union.”
Segelbaum asked about the existing vault. Wagoner said it will be used for storage.
Blum asked the applicants if they’ve given any thought to additional landscaping along
Highway 55. Picha said they haven’t thought about it but they will consider it in the future.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, said she would like to ask the Planning
Commission to support this use. She said it is a great re-use of the property and she is
excited that the applicants are able to expand in Golden Valley.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Waldhauser said this proposal does seem to be a good use for this attractive property.
She added that she is not fond of a solid wood fence.
Baker said he has expressed concern about Conditional Use Permits not benefitting the
City but this proposal clearly does and he supports it.
Kluchka said he would like to discuss requiring a Highway 55/Douglas Drive
communications plan. He said he is proposing the clients be told that they shouldn’t be
turning right to Highway 55 on Country Club Drive because it is a dangerous intersection.
Zimmerman noted that that exit will be closed in approximately one year as part of the
Douglas Drive reconstruction project. Segelbaum said making the conclusion about this
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 4
intersection may not be a good thing for the Planning Commission as a body to state as a
part of this Conditional Use Permit request. Kluchka reiterated that he would like some
sort of communication in place to avoid issues involving this dangerous intersection
especially during rush hour. Cera said he agrees with Kluchka that this is a dangerous
intersection, but there are other intersections in the City that are just as dangerous and he
thinks it is up to the Street Department and the Police Department to decide how to
handle dangerous intersections. He added that he doesn’t think it is a condition that
should be put on the approval of this proposal. Baker also agreed that it is dangerous, but
he would not support a condition regarding a communication plan. Segelbaum
recommended that the applicant study and watch the traffic at that intersection and to the
extent it makes sense to communicate any issues to their clients. Blum stated that after
the intersection is closed the issue will be resolved. He added that 9 full time and 10 part
time jobs will be on site, and the City will be keeping and creating jobs and will allow
families access to quality child care.
Cera referred to the condition regarding the number of clients allowed and asked if the
language should be changed to match whatever the State will allow. Zimmerman said the
City might not want the number to be as high as the State may allow because there could
be issues related to parking. Cera suggested the condition be amended to state that the
applicant is limited to 160 children or the number approved by the Department of Health,
whichever number is lower. Baker said he thinks the applicant could come back and
amend their Conditional Use Permit in the future. Segelbaum agreed. Waldhauser said
she would like to avoid requiring limits for no reason. Segelbaum said that 160 children is
the maximum number the State will allow per the square footage of the space. Cera said
if the use becomes larger he would want there to be a one way entrance and exit.
MOVED
by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 6500 Olson Memorial Highway to allow for a
childcare/preschool facility in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District
subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use:
1. As the Peaceful Valley Montessori
transitions into their new building, they need this facility to continue educating their
established and potential future student base.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
2. A child care use is allowed as a
conditional use within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District.
Effect on Property Values:
3. Staff anticipates the introduction of this use would
have no impact on the surrounding property values.
Effect on Traffic:
4. Staff does not anticipate any negative traffic impacts to the
surrounding areas based on the trips generated by this proposed use.
Effect of Increases in Population and Density:
5. The proposed use will employ
nine full-time and ten part-time employees on site.
Increase in Noise Levels:
6. The proposed use may result in a slight increase in
noise as a result of more children using the outdoor play area, but any increase is
anticipated to have minimal impact.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 5
Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:
7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
Impact of Pests:
8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
Visual Impact:
9. Due to the fact that the applicant does not intend on redesigning the
footprint of the building, but rather the interior design and layout, staff does not
anticipate any negative impacts on the visual quality of the property.
Other Impacts to the City and Residents:
10. Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects caused by the proposed use.
Conditions:
1. The site plan prepared by Paul Meyer Architects and received on September 17,
2015, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The Montessori school/childcare facility shall be limited to 160 clients, or the
amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Health, whichever is less.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health
and/or the Minnesota Department of Education before schooling and childcare
operations may commence. Proof of such licensing shall be presented to the
Planning Manager.
4. If any future changes to the site are made on the north side of the building, the
owner will be required to remove any driveway entrances it does not intend to use
for vehicle access and replace them with curb and gutter to match into the existing
curb line. The owner will also be required to extend the sidewalk from the building
to the north in order to connect to the City sidewalk on Country Club Drive.
5. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm
with occasional events on evenings and weekends.
6. All improvements to the building shall meet the City’s Building and Fire Code
requirements.
7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Code (Section 4.20).
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
Kluchka asked if the City has ever approached MnDOT in order to get some kind of
welcome/gateway sign near this location other than the standard green street sign. Cera
stated that the Commission could suggest to the City Council that they consider placing
welcome signs in gateway locations.
3. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Amending PUD
Requirements – ZO00-102
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering
major, minor, or administrative amendments
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 6
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that this item was continued at their last meeting.
She explained that the purpose of the text amendment is to simplify the entitlement
process and the cumbersome timeframe. The current PUD process can take up to six
months to create a new PUD or to make a major amendment to an existing PUD, and a
minor amendment can take up to two months. The proposed new process would still
take up to six months to create a new PUD, however the amendment process would be
shorter at three months for a major amendment and two months for a minor
amendment. The proposed new language also allows for administrative amendments.
Goellner discussed the proposed differences between major, minor, and administrative
amendments. She explained that a major amendment would be required when the
proposal does not meet the underlying zoning requirements, it significantly effects the
original design and intention, or it requires more public review. A minor amendment
would be required when a proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements, and is
proposing less significant changes. An administrative amendment would be allowed
when the proposed changes are items that are already reviewed administratively if the
proposal were not a PUD.
Cera asked if a proposed new building façade would be considered a minor or
administrative PUD amendment. Goellner said that would probably be considered a minor
amendment.
Waldhauser referred to the proposed language regarding major amendments and asked if
requiring a PUD amendment when there is a change in floor area from 5% to 10% is just
because there have been so many nuisance minor amendments using the 5% cutoff.
Goellner said yes, and added that 5% is quite low and really isn’t the amount of change
that should require more public review. Blum asked if the change in the floor area comes
from the original PUD approval or from subsequent amendments. He added that he thinks
an increase in floor area should have to refer to the original PUD proposal.
Baker said he is struck by the words “significant” and “sensitive” because they are
qualitative words that don’t have a definition in the ordinance. He asked about past
experience in deciding when something is significant. He said he understands the need
for flexibility, but those words are without meaning leave him uncomfortable.
Kluchka noted that in the PowerPoint presentation the word “design” was used, but in the
proposed new code language in Subdivision B (10) & (11) it is not. He asked if that was
intentional and stated that it is a very important word and he would like it to be added to
the proposed code language to make sure design is a consideration.
Waldhauser referred to the list of things that would qualify as an administrative
amendment and said it seems unclear to her when something would be “bumped up”
from an administrative amendment to a major or minor amendment. Goellner explained
that PUDs aren’t approved by using the lists, the lists help determine which process an
amendment should go through.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 7
Goellner stated the proposed new language also requires that new PUDs would be
subject to an amenity point system. She explained the point system and noted that
applicants would need five points from a list of designated amenities and may be
awarded a portion of points for each amenity. She added that the list of amenities is
focused on amenities used in, and seen from the outdoors.
Goellner discussed some other proposed text changes including requiring an applicant to
meet with staff prior to final application submission, and to address all conditions of the
preliminary PUD approval. She stated that the some of the sections of the PUD ordinance
have been restructured/reordered to provide for better readability and usability and noted
that the language regarding submittal of a sign plan and the language regarding wetland
buffers have been removed.
Baker referred to the language regarding the size of wetland buffers and asked what
language is proposed to be removed from the current PUD code requirements. Goellner
stated that the current PUD code requires a 25-foot buffer strip. She explained that the
Engineering staff would like that standard removed from the PUD section of the City Code
because they do their reviews based on other standards and the number in the PUD
section was arbitrary. She added that wetland buffer issues are addressed as part of the
stormwater and erosion control plan review process. Baker said he hopes to add
language requiring a 50-foot buffer to the City standards in the Comprehensive Plan.
Zimmerman added that another reason to remove the standards from the PUD section of
the City Code is so that the City can follow the State standards without having to amend
the City Code every time standards change. Waldhauser asked if those other standards
should be referenced in the City Code. Baker reiterated that he would like to City Code to
match the State standard and require a 50-foot buffer even though that standard refers to
agricultural land.
Johnson suggested that the proposed new language be reordered so that the
amendment process starts with administrative amendments then goes on to minor
amendments, then to major amendments in order to help streamline the process.
Segelbaum suggested the Commission discuss the proposed amenity point system.
Baker questioned why the amenity point system isn’t being proposed at this time for PUD
amendments, only for new PUDs. Goellner stated that the PUD amendment proposals
currently going through the process might not meet the amenity point requirements.
Segelbaum said thinks requiring applicants to have five amenity points seems high. Baker
said he would push for the requirement to be ten amenity points. Segelbaum said he is
concerned about smaller projects and suggested that past proposals be reviewed to see
what would have been approved had amenity points been required. Kluchka agreed that
he would like to quantitate what the City has approved recently to know how harsh or
lenient it has been. Johnson agreed that five amenity points is too many. The items on the
amenities list are expensive things and the City already asks applicants to do many things
as part of a PUD. Baker stated that applicants are getting something from the City when
they are granted a PUD. Blum said he doesn’t know how useful a study would be
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 8
regarding past PUD projects, but starting with a lower number of amenity points seems
more reasonable. Cera suggested more items be added to the amenity list which may
make it easier to get to five points. Kluchka said he is not sure if giving all five points to
one amenity seems like the right thing to do. Waldhauser said she would be fine with
requiring five amenity points. Baker said he agrees five amenity points is ok and putting
all five points in one amenity is ok too because it is a good way to incent the amenities.
Johnson said he thinks the City is going to see a lot of amenities that are cheaper for the
developer such as shrubs, signage and bike racks.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Cera referred to the amenity regarding enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
said the creation of public sidewalks should be added rather than just encouraging the
use of public walkways. He referred to the amenity regarding enhanced stormwater
management and asked if refers to engineered stormwater management, or to natural
stormwater management such as rain gardens, ponds, etc. Waldhauser noted that the
proposed language states that the design must serve as a visual amenity to the property.
Cera said he would like to remove the amenities regarding decorative fencing and
enhanced lighting. He said he would rather have no fencing and does not want to
encourage more lighting. Zimmerman suggested the language be amended to address
the quality of light fixtures.
Blum asked if the amenity regarding bike and pedestrian connections was taken out.
Goellner said yes because that is already a requirement elsewhere in the Code.
Blum noted that the amenity regarding community gardens has a lot of points, but public
open space seems more valuable because it serves more people. Kluchka agreed that
the points for a community garden should be lowered. Segelbaum questioned what would
qualify as open space. Zimmerman stated that partial points could be awarded.
Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding mixed use. Cera stated that a mixed use
that is available to the public should get five points.
Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding wind power. Cera suggested saying
alternative renewable energy rather than just wind.
Kluchka referred to the amenity regarding LEED certification and asked if it has to be
LEED “certified” or “qualified.” Goellner said she would like the language to say certified.
Segelbaum questioned who would determine between “certified” and “qualified.” Cera
said there are LEED auditors. Goellner said she could do it because she has LEED
accreditation. Blum questioned if Gold and Platinum LEED certification should have the
same amount of points. Goellner suggested they have a difference of one point.
Kluchka suggested adding an amenity regarding the creation of unique architecture that
would be worth four points. Segelbaum questioned if the word unique should be used.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 9
Baker said he doesn’t like the word unique. Kluchka suggested the words architecturally
significant instead of unique.
Waldhauser referred to the amenity regarding a public recreation area and suggested that
the language stating “…play equipment or natural features suitable for recreational use by
children and families” be removed. Segelbaum questioned if that language is removed if it
would then be considered open space instead of a public recreation area.
Waldhauser suggested adding language about an increase in the variety of housing and
life cycle housing to the affordable housing units amenity. Kluchka questioned if the
definition of affordable is beyond current incentives or subsidies, and if the City is getting
something more. Zimmerman stated there are certain thresholds but the point is to
encourage affordable housing units.
Blum suggested adding an amenity that would give points for offering underground
parking, and also adding an amenity regarding covered walkways.
Cera referred to the amenity regarding rooftop solar panels and suggested that the
language be changed to require the system to cover a minimum of 50% of energy needs,
rather than to cover 50% of the total roof area.
Segelbaum said the suggested additional amenities seem worth studying further and that
he would like to see some other amenities that would be worth one point.
Cera referred to the items required to be submitted during the Final PUD process and
stated that he would like a recycling plan added to the list.
Baker referred to the proposed language regarding riparian buffer requirements (Subd.
6(A)(3)(a)) and reiterated that he wants the buffer requirement language in the PUD
ordinance to be 50 feet which is consistent with the State requirements. Zimmerman
stated that staff would like that language removed from the PUD section of City Code in
order to reduce the number of conflicts and to be consistent with what the Bassett Creek
Watershed Commission and the State require. Waldhauser suggested language be
added to the City Code stating that the buffer requirements will be consistent with State
requirements. Segelbaum agreed that the requirements should be consistent code-wide.
Blum asked if language regarding snow removal requirements should be added.
Zimmerman stated that there already are snow removal requirements listed in the PUD
section of the Code. Blum questioned if the height of snow banks should be addressed.
Zimmerman said that could be included as part of a snow storage plan.
Kluchka asked if language regarding communications plans should be added.
Zimmerman stated that communication plans regarding construction are usually required
post PUD plan approval. Goellner stated that communication plan requirements could be
part of the development agreement process. Kluchka asked if it could be part of the
standard conditions discussed during the PUD process so the Planning Commission
doesn’t have to remember to add it every time. Zimmerman stated that a communication
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 28, 2015
Page 10
plan is not required as part of a PUD submittal. Waldhauser noted that some PUDs don't
need to have a communication plan.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item to
the October 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman gave an update on the 3.9.4, the Xenia, Liberty Crossing, and Cornerstone
Creek apartment projects. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan Systems Statements
have arrived so the amendment process will be starting soon.
5. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report - No report was given.
Cera stated that due to health conditions he would like to resign as Chair.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to elect
Segelbaum as Chair, and Cera as Vice Chair.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02
�
John Kluc a, Secretary Li ittman, Administrative Assistant