02-08-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
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,
January 25, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
January 25, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the seventh paragraph on page four and asked that the second
sentence be changed to read as follows: "She said she thinks economic segregation is a
growing problem and something we can address as a community."
Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page four and said she would like "by
area in the community" added to the cost of housing demographic data that she would
like included in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Johnson said he would like his comments regarding reviewing the Comprehensive Plan
as well as updating to be included in the minutes because the law states that cities need
to "review and update"when discussing their Comprehensive Plans.
MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 2 to approve the January
25, 2016, minutes with the above noted changes. Commissioners Baker and Kluchka
abstained.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— Central Park West—
Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100— PU-121, Amendment#1
Applicant: RISLP, LLC (AC Hotels by Marriot)
Address: 5075 Wayzata Boulevard
Purpose: To construct a 6 story, 126 room, Marriott hotel on the border of St.
Louis Park and Golden Valley.
Goellner explained the applicant's request to construct a 6 story, 126 room, Marriott hotel
on the border of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The hotel will be in St. Louis Park and
the parking lot will be in Golden Valley. She noted that the hotel location and layout was
already approved as part of the original Central Park West PUD.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 2
Goellner stated that this will be a business oriented hotel with several amenities
including: a breakfast area, a bar/lounge, a rooftop spa, meeting rooms, and a fitness
center. She referred to the building materials and discussed the use of glass, two colors
of stucco, Coronado stone, and fiber cement panels, all of which exceed the City of St.
Louis Park's minimum standards for Class I materials. She also discussed the proposed
landscaping plan which includes 63 trees, 503 shrubs and 1,000+ grasses and
perennials.
Goellner referred to the parking for the hotel use and stated that 189 spaces are required
and 189 spaces will be provided. There will be 27 underground parking spaces, 52 on-
site, surface parking spaces, and 110 permanent parking ramp spaces. She added that
there will be 110 temporary surface lot spaces until the parking ramp is constructed and
that the applicant has stated that they are willing to provide valet or shuttle service from
the temporary surFace lot spaces to the hotel. She added that 16 bicycle parking spaces
are required and that the applicant will be providing 20.
Goellner discussed the Quentin and Wayzata intersection improvements including the
addition of all-way stop signs and additional turn lanes.
Johnson stated that typically parking spaces are immediately adjacent to a building and
questioned if a precedent would be set by allowing the parking spaces in this case to be
further away. Goellner agreed that ideally parking spaces are within 500 feet of a
building. She explained that the City Council approved the spaces in the parking ramp
with a sidewalk connection to the hotel as part of the original PUD. Johnson noted that it
is approximately a 200 yard walk from the temporary parking spaces to the hotel and
asked about the lighting and safety standards. Goellner stated that the lighting in the
temporary parking area won't change much from what already exists, and that the hotel
will want to make the area safe and provide a safe connection for their guests. Johnson
agreed, and asked what that looks like. Zimmerman noted that the Phase 1 residential
building and the park will be in place and will have sidewalks and lighting around them.
Baker asked if the applicant has made a commitment to have a valet or shuttle service
from the temporary parking lot to the hotel. Goellner said no. Baker asked if the City can
require a shuttle service be provided. Kluchka stated that the notes from the applicant's
neighborhood meeting state that they intend to provide a shuttle service.
Waldhauser asked if there would be a walkway through the Phase 1 residential building.
Goellner said no, from a property management and security standpoint that would be
difficult.
Kluchka asked about the proposed intersection improvements and the location of the
pedestrian access. Goellner referred to the site plan and showed where the sidewalks
will be located along Wayzata Blvd. and Utica Ave. and she discussed how people will
be able to access the site and the park.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 3
Kluchka said he hasn't seen any renderings that show the building in context with the
other buildings around it and how they will work together. Goellner said she would ask
the applicant to provide more renderings.
Waldhauser asked if St. Louis Park is overseeing the stormwater treatment on the
property. Goellner said yes, St. Louis Park is taking the lead with the Minnehaha
Watershed and that Golden Valley will be adding comments.
Segelbaum referred to the staff report and noted that there are no requirements in this
zoning district regarding the amount of impervious surface allowed, but the applicant is
proposing 76%. Goellner agreed and stated that the requirements regarding structure
coverage might address some of the same issues.
Segelbaum asked if St. Louis Park had any suggestions or changes during their review
of this proposal. Goellner said St. Louis Park's concerns are mostly about traffic but that
no changes to the plans have been suggested.
Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects, referred to the Commissioners' concerns about
parking and said they would be fine with a condition being added that a shuttle service
must be provided. He also said he would provide more rendering showing the building
design and how it fits in with the surrounding buildings if he is able to get information
from the owners of the surrounding buildings.
Segelbaum asked Messner if he is ok with the additional sidewalk from the hotel to
Wayzata Blvd. Messner said yes.
Kluchka asked Messner to describe what materials and colors will be used. Messner
stated that the renderings in the agenda packet were printed with ink that does not
perfectly depict the colors accurately. He referred to a drawing of the proposed hotel and
stated that the middle section of the building will be limestone and that there will be fiber
cement bands around the building. There will also be stucco in shades of dark gray, not
the mauve or purplish color shown on the submitted drawings. Kluchka said it might be
helpful to provide more photos or samples to the City Council. Messner said he has
samples of the materials.
Kluchka referred to the south elevation and the portion of the west elevation close to the
corner and asked if there was any consideration to make those elevations more alive or
visibly attractive since it will face residential. Goellner stated that there will be dog run
area between the hotel the residential building. Messner stated that the curtain wall will
wrap around the west side of the building and that a continuous band will run across the
top of the building. He stated that the south end of the building includes the entrance to
the underground parking and will include a corridor area without many windows, but that
there will be large storefront windows looking into the lounge/bar area. Baker said the
south side of the building will be facing residential and it will be a large uninterrupted
surface that won't be very attractive. Kluchka said in the original PUD proposal, the south
end of the hotel was marketed as a highly visible area. He said that residents will see a
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 4
sizable gray stucco box and asked if the human scale appeal had been considered.
Johnson agreed that a softer, less imposing look would be better. Messner said they can
work on dressing up those areas. Kluchka requested that the applicant connect with
some of the other developers in the area to discuss their design solutions and how the
designs interact. Blum said there is some substantial landscaping noted on the plans on
the south side and asked if that will help mitigate the large expanse. Messner noted that
the southeast corner of the site will have some trees which will help somewhat with
screening.
Johnson asked about the definition of the bar/lounge area and the roof top spa. Messner
said the roof top spa will have a whirlpool or hot tub with a small seating area and that
the bar/lounge area is a larger area on the first floor next to the lobby.
Blum asked if the bar/lounge area will be used only by hotel guests, or if it will be used
by the public as well. John Hafner, Cities Edge Architects, stated that it will be used
predominately by hotel guests and that the menu will be geared toward hotel guests.
Waldhauser referred to the landscaped islands in the parking lot and asked if they will be
recessed to capture rain. Messner stated that the islands are just a landscaping feature
and that there is an underground stormwater system that they don't want tree roots to
compromise.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum referred to the valet or shuttle service requirement and said he doesn't see
how that can be a land use prescription. Baker said it is a component of the parking
requirements. He added that the parking is further away than normal and he doesn't
want to set a precedent for future parking plans. Kluchka suggested adding language
regarding a shuttle service plan as part of the Travel Demand Management Plans
mentioned in condition #7 in the staff report. Goellner said she would prefer there to be a
separate condition regarding the valet or shuttle service requirement.
Waldhauser asked how many parking spaces will be available in the on-site surface
parking lot. Goellner said there will be 52 on-site surface lot parking spaces and 27
underground parking spaces, so on an average night every guest would be able to park
on-site and would not have to use the temporary surface lot. Waldhauser added that not
every guest will have a car and suggested that the proposed condition regarding the
shuttle service state that a shuttle to the temporary lot will be required if needed, or if the
surface lot can't handle the number of guests. Kluchka suggested the condition state the
owner/operator of the hotel must supply a shuttle service plan subject to approval and
periodic review by the City. Segelbaum questioned why the City would require a plan
rather than requiring the shuttle service itself. Kluchka said a plan could outline details of
when they will need it and he doesn't want to be too strict. Zimmerman agreed that a
plan could spell out the details of the shuttle or valet service. Segelbaum suggested the
condition state that the owner/operator must provide shuttle or valet service as needed
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 5
for guest use. Goellner said staff would come up with language for the condition before
this item goes to the City Council for review.
Segelbaum asked if a condition should be added regarding the south and west sides of
the building. Waldhauser suggested the condition state that the applicant shall improve
the visual impact or appeal of the south and west elevations. Zimmerman stated that
improving the appearance or visual quality gives staff direction in writing a condition.
Goellner added that promoting the pedestrian environment also gives staff direction.
Kluchka suggested the condition state that the applicant shall consider design options for
visual appeal and quality of appearance on the pedestrian views for the south and west
elevations as well as the context of the adjacent properties. Johnson suggested using
the word continuity instead of the word context. Baker said he is concerned that the other
buildings may not be designed yet, so the next developer may have to address those
issues. Goellner said the same developer will be involved in the next phases so the
buildings and product type will be similar.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of approval of Central Park West PUD No. 121, Amendment #1,
subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site, such as the
proximity to high retaining walls and highway tra�c to the north and east and high-
density development to the south and west. With flexibility under a PUD in uses
allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and
similar requirements, the quality of site planning and design is of higher quality than
if each parcel was designed individually under conventional provisions. The PUD
encourages creativity and flexibility in land development.
2. The site is currently vacant and is mostly impervious. The proposed plan adds
roughly 63 trees, 503 shrubs, and over 1,000 perennial and grasses to the site.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use of the land. The PUD plan
provides an appropriate area of the city for a six-story hotel.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. High-
density office, commercial, and residential uses surround the site to the south and
west. Low-density residential uses are separated from this proposed PUD site by
significant highway development. The PUD plan increases lodging options in the
area.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the City. The PUD plan promotes
pedestrian activity and provides high-quality landscaping additions to the site.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions. The PUD provision permits flexibility from other provisions in
Chapter 11 of the City Code. This flexibility is permitted in order to promote the
intent and purpose of the PUD section of the City Code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 6
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by Colberg Tews and Cities Edge Architects submitted on
January 26, 2016, 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, February 1, 2016,
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, February 1, 2016, shall
become a part of this approval.
4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's �ign Code (Section 4.20).
5. The plan shall include a direct and continuous sidewalk between the building's front
entrance and Wayzata Boulevard.
6. The City of St. Louis Park approves that portion of the preliminary planned unit
development within its jurisdiction.
7. The property owners of any parcel in the Central Park West PUD shall follow the
travel demand management plans approved for the West End Redevelopment,
which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. The owner may be required to update
the plan or submit a new plan to the Golden Valley and St. Louis Park I-394 Joint
Task Force as needed.
8. The Final PUD plan submitted shall include a detailed Lighting Plan in accordance
with the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements (Section 11.73).
9. Bicycle parking shall be located within fifty feet of the building's front entrance.
10. The Owner/operator of the hotel shall supply a shuttle service plan subject to
approval and periodic review by the City.
11. The applicant shall consider design options for visual appeal and quality of
appearance on the pedestrian views for the south and west elevations as well as the
context of the adjacent structures.
12. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending
Accessory Retail Sales Requirements —ZO00-103
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider modifications in the language regarding accessory retail
sales in the Light Industrial/Industrial Zoning Districts.
Goellner explained that in 2003 the City began allowing accessory retail sales incidental
to a permitted use in an area less than 10% of a building's footprint. She stated that
experience has shown that this is unnecessarily restrictive when a Conditional Use
Permit is also required no matter the size of the retail space. She stated that there has
been a growing interest in retail accessory uses as a part of distribution/warehouse
businesses so staff is suggesting that the Zoning Code be amended to allow accessory
retail services and/or sales incidental to a permitted use, conducted in an area less than
10% of the building's gross floor area, rather than 10% of the building's footprint.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 7
Goellner referred to photos of some of the buildings in the Light Industrial and Industrial
zoning districts and stated that the buildings most affected by this proposed change
include two-story buildings or buildings with a mezzanine because of the increased
gross floor area. She stated that of the 161 Light Industrial and Industrial buildings
considered, 112 buildings are one-story and not affected by this proposal, and 49
buildings have two-stories, a mezzanine, and/or a basement and would be affected by
this proposal.
Goellner discussed some of the potential negative impacts which include: increased
traffic and parking demand, increased hours of operation, and the need for a
Conditional Use Permit, no matter the size of the retail use.
Waldhauser asked if retail includes or excludes showrooms. Goellner stated that
showrooms and auto sales are considered differently and not included in.this proposed
amendment.
Baker asked what motived this amendment. Goellner stated that staff has talked to a
number of applicants who have asked about increasing the size of their retail space.
Baker asked if other applications the Planning Commission has seen in the past were
constrained by the current requirements. Zimmerman stated that some of the inquiries
have been close to the 10% of the building's footprint requirement and it has caused
staff to explore why the building's footprint, rather than the building's square footage is
being used.
Baker said one of rationales used in this proposal is to have incremental change
because the City doesn't want to lose its industrially zoned properties and asked if there
have been any requests for new industrial properties. Goellner said there haven't been
any requests to rezone properties to Light Industrial or Industrial. Zimmerman stated
that the former SIFCO site on Winnetka Avenue was zoned Industrial and has been
rezoned to Residential as part of the Liberty Crossing proposal.
Blum asked if this proposed new language will increase the tax value of some of the
industrial buildings. Goellner said she thinks it will, but that she would need to do more
research on that issue.
Segelbaum asked if it would be worth considering any Ather measurement criteria
besides the percentage of space, or if there needs to be other industrial activities
occurring in the building. Goellner said yes, the Zoning Code requires that a building be
primarily used for warehouse or other permitted industrial uses and that retail sales can
be a component of that primary use.
Segelbaum asked about the hours of operation for these types of uses. Goellner said
each request would be considered individually as part of the Conditional Use Permit
process.
Segelbaum asked if the City could require improvements to a building if the owner
wanted to increase the amount of retail use. Goellner said that is difficult because the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 8
Zoning Code defines Accessory Retail Sales under uses and the City can't give
variances in regard to use.
Segelbaum asked about other cities requirements. Goellner said she could do more
research on what other cities require, but she thinks accessory retail sales are probably
limited because cities want to keep industrial properties because they are hard to get
back once they are rezoned.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka said he thinks the proposed amendment is well thought out and organized.
Baker said he thinks incremental change is good but he would like hear from the
affected property owners. Zimmerman stated that they will get feedback from the
business community as part of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update process.
Waldhauser asked if it would be appropriate to send a letter to the affected property
owners to see if they would want something different. Goellner said keeping track of
vacancies would help. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that staff is working on
creating an existing land use map that will also help track current uses.
Waldhauser said the proposed amendment sounds reasonable.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Zoning Code text amendment regarding accessory retail sales
in the Light Industrial/Industrial Zoning Districts.
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 Apartment proposal. He said the developer is
expected to close on the property today. Waldhauser noted that work has also started on
the Laurel Ponds project. She asked staff if the Arcata apartments are on track with their
rentals. Zimmerman said he didn't know.
Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
education meeting on February 29.
5. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
Council Member Schmidgall stated that the economy is beginning to recover and that the
Zoning Code text amendment regarding accessory retail sales in the Light Industrial and
Industrial zoning districts that the Planning Commission just discussed will give
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 8, 2016
Page 9
businesses some good flexibility. He stated that he is glad to see development occurring
and that different types of housing opportunities are being provided.
Schmidgall reminded the Commissions that the METRO Blue Line municipal consent
issue will be considered at the February 16 City Council meeting. Baker asked about the
comments received at the February 2 City Council meeting. Schmidgall said there were
approximately 20 people who spoke at the public hearing. He said parking is a concern as
well as screening between Sochacki Park and the project but he is hopeful that the
project will benefit the park.
Schmidgall gave an update on the Brookview Community Center project and said he
thinks it will be nice benefit for the community.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
�
John Kluc a, Secretary L Wittman, Administrative Assistant