05-23-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 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,
May 23, 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 were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
May 9, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the discussion regarding the size of the parking stalls for the
North Wirth Associates PUD Amendment proposal and questioned if the City is allowing
parking stalls to be 18 feet in length throughout the site, or only in the parking ramp.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant's plans show the shorter parking stalls only in the
ramp.
Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page four regarding her question about
adding a green roof. She clarified that the applicant's response was that they could
possibly add a green roof, however a large part of their business is installing solar panels
so they have a preference for solar panels.
Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page 11 and asked that the words "but
that is not the case for the whole City" be struck from the last sentence.
Kluchka referred to ninth paragraph on page four and clarified that his comments
regarding Cor-Ten steel applied to the style of the proposal and not necessarily just the
planters.
Segelbaum referred to the discussion on page five regarding the use of the words "must"
and "shall." He noted that there was nothing added in the conditions of approval and
asked if those changes will be addressed in the staff report that goes to the City Council
Zimmerman said yes.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the May 9, 2016, minutes with the above noted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 1000 Boone Avenue
North — Fired Up, Inc. — CU-149
Applicant: Fired Up, Inc.
Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 2
Purpose: To allow for accessory retail sales incidental to a permitted use
(ceramics studio) in the Industrial zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow retail services incidental to a permitted use (ceramics
studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the
property is a 124,000 square foot multi-tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse
uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space
with 456 on-site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease
7,221 square feet of space for a member's only ceramics studio. He stated that the
applicant is currently operating in Minneapolis and their hours will be Monday to Friday
from 3 pm to 6 pm with extended hours on Wednesdays from 11 am to 6 pm. They will
also be open on Saturdays 1 pm to 6 pm and on Sundays from noon to 2 pm. He added
that 3 to 15 people visit the site on a typical day and that the reason they need a
Conditional Use Permit is because they are proposing to have 600 square feet of shelf
space in order to display and sell work done by the members. They also hold a silent
auction once a year in December.
Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls
for 18 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed ceramic studio's lease includes 10
parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of
parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Johnson asked if
the retail space was taken into consideration when reviewing the parking requirements.
Zimmerman said no because the retail space in this case is so small it would not have
made a difference in the amount of parking required.
Johnson asked if the hours of the retail space are the same as the studio space.
Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked if the hours of operation are limited by the City.
Zimmerman said no, but a condition regarding the hours could be added in the future if
problems arise.
Blum asked if a Conditional Use Permit runs with the tenant or with the property owner.
Zimmerman stated that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so another similar
use with the same amount of retail space could go into the space in the future.
SegeJbaum referred to the language in the Zoning Code regarding allowing 10% of the
gross floor area to be used for retail space and asked if that is the recently amended new
language or if that is the old language. Zimmerman said the new language was used in
the calculation. Kluchka questioned why 10% of the gross floor area is used and not 10%
of the actual space. Segelbaum noted that a tenant could monopolize the entire 10% if
they were the first tenant in the building with a retail use. Zimmerman said it is possible
that one tenant could use the entire 10% but the point is that the City wouldn't be having
to pick and choose which tenant could use the retail space. Waldhauser said from the
stand point of the property owner it gives them the most flexibility in allowing tenants
some retail space. Zimmerman agreed and said ultimately the City just wants to limit the
amount because that tends to limit the amount of traffic.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 3
Beth Robinson, Owner, Fired Up Inc., said she started her business 19 years ago. She
explained that the retail space is not the basis of her business, it is just a member's
benefit.
Baker asked Robinson where in Minneapolis she was located and why she decided to
move. Robinson said they were located in Northeast Minneapolis and that the building is
being renovated and the rents are going up. Baker asked where the proceeds of the retail
sales go. Robinson said she gets 40% and the members get 60%.
Blum asked Robinson how many employees she has. Robinson said she has two part-
time employees.
Waldhauser asked Robinson if the public sales are announced or advertised. Robinson
explained that the retail sales will only occur during their limited office hours, but they do
announce their annual silent auction and a percentage of the proceeds from the auction
go to a non-profit organization.
Segelbaum asked Robinson if she is looking for new members. Robinson said she only
has space for one more member, but they do offer various classes.
Baker referred to the kilns the applicant will be using and asked about ventilation in the
space. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said Robinson has
been working with their property manager and the City regarding building code issues and
making sure the space will meet the building code requirements.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kluchka questioned whether or not they should include the condition limiting the amount
of retail space to 600 square feet. If the property owner is managing who gets the retail
space he questions why the Conditional Use Permit needs to state that one tenant gets
600 square feet especially if the business needs to be more flexible than that. Segelbaum
questioned how else the amount of retail space in a building would be managed.
Zimmerman stated that staff relies on the plans and proposals submitted to help
determine that the retail use is an incidental accessory use to the permitted use. Kluchka
asked if all of the regulations are listed in the Zoning Code why there needs to be a
condition capping the square feet at 600. Zimmerman said it has been the practice with
Conditional Use Permits to be specific to make sure that accessory retail space doesn't
creep over time. Baker asked if the Conditional Use Permit would have to be amended if
this tenant wanted to expand their amount of retail space. Zimmerman said yes.
Baker asked about the total amount of potential retail space in this building. Zimmerman
said the entire building is 124,000 square feet so there could be up to 12,400 square feet
of accessory retail space.
Segelbaum said he doesn't see a reason to limit the amount of square footage of retail
space in this case, but if that is how the City calculates the amount of accessory retail
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 4
space he is ok with the condition allowing 600 square feet as a practical matter. Kluchka
said it seems like an odd way to calculate the square footage of r�tail space.
Baker said it would put staff in a bind and take a lot of work to figure out the square
footage for accessory retail space if they had to calculate it for every proposal. Kluchka
suggested relying on building permit information and plans for that information.
Baker questioned why tenants are the applicants on these types of requests. Zimmerman
explained that the tenants are the ones doing the proposed use so it is helpful to have
them be the applicant. Baker stated that it might be easier to make the property owner,
rather than the tenant, do the space calculations.
Segelbaum said he is in favor of keeping the condition regarding limiting the amount of
accessory retail space to 600 square feet. Zimmerman stated that he asked the applicant
to estimate high on the amount of retail space they will need so he thinks 600 square feet
will probably be more than enough for this applicant.
11AOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findinqs:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Fired Up Studios is an existing
business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on
their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of
demand there will be for their operations.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A ceramics studio is consistent with
the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on
the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the
neighborhood extremely unlikely.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and largely concentrated in the evenings and weekends. Staff does not expect any
negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking
available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated.
5: Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently
underutilized.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications,
staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 5
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial
property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses.
Conditions:
1. The total amount of accessory retail space shall be limited to 600 square feet.
2. fn the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City
Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require
modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation
in order to adequately address parking concerns.
3. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 710 Pennsylvania Avenue
South — Morrie's Heritage Car Connection — CU-150
Applicant: Morrie's Heritage Car Connection
Address: 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for automobile rentals in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property which includes both 710 and 750
Pennsylvania Avenue South. He explained the applicant's request to allow for automobile
rentals in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district. The applicant is proposing to store
approximately 30 classic cars in the building that would be available for rental between 8
am and 5 pm, 7 days a week. The applicant anticipates up to 10 customers per day with 1
to 3 employees on-site to assist with rental operations. The applicant is also proposing to
use a portion of the building for a casual car club for classic car enthusiasts which will
require a building code analysis and a Certificate of Occupancy prior to any public
assembly use.
Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and stated that based on the
size of the building, the automobile rental use requires 5 parking spaces and the applicant
is allocating 22 parking spaces. He referred to the applicant's parking plan and discussed
the number of parking spaces located in various areas on the site. He added that there
will be no dealership inventory parking allowed on the property.
Waldhauser asked if there has been any discussion about how many people would gather
in the car club area. Zimmerman said the number of people allowed would be addressed
in the building code analysis and the Certificate of Occupancy.
Blum asked if the rental cars are exclusively stored inside the building. Zimmerman said
yes, the cars will be securely stored indoors.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 6
Waldhauser asked what triggered the submittal of the Conditional Use Permit application
because it seems that a number of proposed uses are already occurring. Zimmerman
said that staff has been working with the applicant for a while about the process and
recently the applicant came to the City and said they were ready to apply. He added that
he thinks that the car club has had a "soft opening" but they would now like to go forward
and make it more publicly known.
Kluchka asked if there are any opportunities to add landscaping conditions. Zimmerman
explained that the conditions are targeted to the impacts generated by the use. The
applicant has indicated that they intend to paint the building and do some clean-up. He
added that the Planning Commission could ask that some landscaping be done especially
in the areas where cars have been stored.
Waldhauser asked if there will be food and beverage service in the car club area.
Zimmerman said they won't be allowed to prepare food on-site.
Baker asked what the business is at 750 Pennsylvania Ave. Lynn Robson, CFO Morrie's
Automotive Group, said they don't own that building, but it is a company called Midwest
Maintenance.
Kluchka asked about landscaping plans particularly in the front area where cars have
been parked. Robson said they would be willing replace the grass in that area.
Segelbaum asked if they have plans to fix up the property to make it look nicer. Robson
said this is first time she has heard that fixing up the property is an expectation. She
agreed that the grass looks unsightly and needs to be taken care of, but they haven't
hired a landscape architect to see if there is any possibility to do any landscaping in front
of the building.
Baker asked where the rental cars would be maintained. Robson said maintenance would
occur at their dealership locations.
Waldhauser asked when they started using this building in this way as a rental service or
a car club. Robson said they started leasing the building in October of 2014 and they've
been storing vehicles there, but they have been trying to figure out the viability and if
there really is a market for this proposed use. Segelbaum asked if they've been operating
the car rental use at this location. Robson said they have been operating the rental
service from their Subaru store in Minnetonka.
Waldhauser asked if they've had any events and if so, what the turnout was for them.
Josh Karsten, Morrie's Automotive Group, said they've had a couple of small events with
5 or 10 people but the number of people they are allowed to have in the space will be
determined with the building code analysis and permit process.
Blum asked about the sidewalk shown on the northeast portion of the property. Karsten
explained that it is more of an emergency exit walkway than a sidewalk.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 7
Johnson asked the applicants if they have any comments about the grass areas being
used for dealership inventory parking in violation of the Zoning Code. Robson said they
have met with City staff and they are getting better at policing the parking of their
inventory and they know they are not allowed to park inventory there. Segelbaum asked if
there is reason to think that inventory parking will still occur. Robson stated that since it
will be a condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit they will talk to their
employees and they will comply. Johnson suggested landscaping be installed that would
discourage or prohibit parking in the grass/landscaped areas. Robson said that is a
possi�aility.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she agrees with the suggestion
that there be additional landscaping and a parking plan. She said she is concerned about
more coming her way with so much going on with the Laurel Ponds project and added
that she would like the parking spaces to be clearly signed.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Segelbaum asked if there are continuing concerns with the parking. Zimmerman said he
hasn't heard any complaints lately about inventory storage. He stated that staff did meet
with a number of dealerships and will be working on amending the outdoor storage
section of the City Code.
Waldhauser questioned if transports should be unloaded at all on this property and
suggested they be delivered to Morrie's instead. Segelbaum noted that the applicant
needs to have 5 parking spaces and they are proposing to have 22 spaces so he
questions if it is an issue to park inventory in the extra spaces. Robson stated that they
have stopped unloading vehicles at this location. Zimmerman explained that the City's
position is that inventory parking should occur on the dealer's own property, not on other
properties. Segelbaum said he would like to add a condition about unloading cars on this
property. Waldhauser suggested it be added to condition #4. Baker agreed.
Kluchka suggested condition #2 be amended to read as follows: "parking spaces shall
be designated "and signed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Segelbaum questioned if only the car club spaces should be signed. Kluchka said he
would like the parking spaces organized in some way to help address the storage
issuzs. He changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be
designated "and signed as needed" as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016."
Baker questioned why employee parking would need to be signed if they tell the
employees where to park. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of some signage
indicating where customers should park for the classic car rental business. Kluchka
changed his suggestion for condition #2 to read "parking spaces shall be designated as
shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016, with signage to indicate use."
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 8
Kluchka suggested a condition be added requiring landscaping improvements to
prevent parkin� in designated grass areas.
Baker stated that condition #4 should be amended to address the unloading of
inventory. Kluchka suggested condition #4 be changed to "no dealership inventory
vehicles shall be unloaded or stored on-site."
Robson reiterated that they don't own the property at 750 Pennsylvania and clarified
that they won't be able to put any signs on that property.
Kluchka reviewed the proposed changes as follows: condition #2 is modified to state
"Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16, 2016,
with signage to indicate use." Condition #4 should state "No dealership inventory
vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site." And a condit;on should be added
s#ating "Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
g�ass areas."
MQVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval ctf the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following
findings and conditions
Findinqs:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Morrie's has identified a demand for
classic car rentals and believes there is a viable market for their operation.
2. Consist�ncy with the Comprehensive Plan: An automobile rental business is
consi�ter�t with the Mixed Use designation of this pr�perty on the General Land Use
Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values. The area is generally occupied by light industrial or
manufacturing uses with car dealerships to the east.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal
and staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas.
Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is
anticipated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location.
6. Increase in Noise LevelS: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Jmpact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticip�ated to cause
an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Vis:ual Impact: Staff does not anticipate a negative change in the visual quality of
the property. The applicant has indicated that the building ��rill be painted and
adelitional signage installed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 9
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a non-residential area with
adequate parking to serve the use.
Conditions:
1. No assembly use shall be permitted until the Inspections Division approves and
issues a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Parking spaces shall be designated as shown on the Parking Plan dated May 16,
2016, wifh signage to indicate use.
3. 'Ali vehicles must be parked on paved surfaces and no vehicles may be located in
the acc�ssible parking discharge areas. Accessible parking discharge areas shall
be signed as required by code.
4. No dealership inventory vehicles shall be loaded/unloaded or stored on-site.
5. Landscaping improvements will be added to help prevent parking in designated
�rass areas.
6. Due to the change in occupancy, the applicant shall submit for review a code
analysis from a registered architect.
7. The building shall be completely protected with a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
8. The fire alarm system in the building shall meet NFPA 72 and UL Certifications.
9. The applicant shall contact the Golden Valley Fire Department to schedule a routine
fire inspection after occupying the space.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
11. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for
revocation.
4. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment—
9050 Golden Valley Road — CPAM-59
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to— Commercial-Office.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 9050 Golden Valley Road —
ZQ22-05
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 9050 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from High Density Residential (R-4) to
Business and Professional Offices.
Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 10
The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 5 and 6 were combined.
Zimmerman explained the City's proposal to redesignate and rezone the property located at
905Q Golden Valley Road from High Lensity Residential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Officea. H� discuss�d the history of the property and stated that prior to August 2015, the
property wa� zoned Commercial and occupied by a fast food restaurant. The City rezoned
the property to High Density Residential and the property owner was told he may continue
with non-conforming commercial uses or switch to residential.
Zimmerman explained that the property owner intended to sell the property for use as a
credit union however, previously undiscovered language in the existing Conditional Use
Permit limits any non-conforming use to "Fast Food Restaurant (with drive thru) only." This
language limits the options and the property would have contested the rezoning done in
2015 if this had been known at the time. He stated that there is no legal way to remove the
existing Conditional Use Permit or amend the language to allow for other non-conforming
uses since the property is now zoned High Density Residential. Rede�ignating the property
to Commercial-Office and rezoning it to Business and Professional Offices would allow for a
limited range of commercial uses while avoiding the higher impact uses that concerned the
City Council. Redesignating and rezoning the property would also be consistent with the
vision of a ne�v Mixed Use zoning district to be created and implemented in this area as part
of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Waldh�user asked if the property is redesignated and rezoned to Business and Professional
Offices if a retail use could be proposed. Zimmerman stated that limited retail services
woUld �e allo�roed with a Conditional Use Permif.
Kluchka asked about the uses across the street at 9100 and 9010 Golden Valley Road.
Zimmerman stated that one of the properties is Chip and Putt which is open sea5onally, and
the other is a small vacant office building.
Baker questioned if this proposal is a creative solution because there is no other way to
eliminate the existing Conditional Use Permit. Zimmerman stated that if the existing
Conditional Use Permit is rescinded the only option left to the prop�rty owner,is High
Density Residential. �aker said his concern is that the City wants this area to be a vibrant
residentiai/mixed use area and a credit union isn't a particularly a#trac�ive use to get the City
where it wants fo go. Zimmerman stated that several other uses could occur if the property
iszoned Busir�ess and Professional Offices even though a credit union is what is being
discussed. He said he agreed with Baker about a new mixed u�E zoning district for the area,
but said there are no good solutions until that is created.
Baker questioned what the consequence would be in leaving the property zoned High
Density Residential even though it may not be fair to the owner. Zimmerman stated that the
property could be used by another fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. Waldhauser
questiqrsd if the City would rather have that use. Baker said with the new residential uses
in the area a creative fast food use might be good.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 11
Segelbaum asked if a credit union with a drive-thru would need a Conditional Use Permit if
the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices. Zimmerman said yes.
Waldhauser asked if the property is 100 feet wide as required in the Business and
Professionai Offices zoning district. Zimmerman said yes.
Blum asked about the height of the buildings to the �ast and west of this property.
Zimmerman stated that the building to the wes# is a two-story residential building with 1-
story garages and the building to the east will be an approximate 5-story, senior living
building.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Blum said it seems like the Planning Commission has received some guidance from the City
Counci{ to make this area walkable. He said he does not see a one or two story building
getting them there, or achieving that goal with this proposed use.
Kluchka said when he looks at the size of this property he thinks it is a great place for a high
density residential use and a more pedestrian friendly area. He noted that there are some
existing commercial uses in the area and some other commercial uses that could be in
transition.
Waldhauser stated that when they've talked to credit unions in the past, access, visibility,
and signage were important to them and that this property has none of those. Zimmerman
stated that there is a credit union who is interested in the site and they say it meets their
needs. If that doesn't work out a fast food restaurant is the property owner's fallback use. He
added that the property owner has been marketing the property for residential uses and that
there hasn't been any interest at the listed price.
Waldhauser said she got the impression from the staff reports that some of the
misinformation that the property owner and the City discovered should have been figured
out sooner. Zimmerman said it has been an interesting process because the language in
the existing Conditional Use Permit limits the uses allowed on the property. Waldhauser
asked if the existing property owner purchased the property after it was rezoned to High
Density Residential. Zimmerman said he believes the property owner inherited the property
so he didn't buy it with wrong information.
Johns�on asked how many units would be allowed on this property with the High Density
Residential (R-4) zoning classification. Zimmerman said the R-4 zoning would allow 12 or
more units per acre. Johnson stated that there are approximately 1,500 units currently being
created in Golden Valley so one thing the City needs to think about if the property is kept
high density residential, is if it would lighten the demand and just stagnate.
Baker said he wishes there was another route to get mixed use in this area where there will
be a lot of residential properties but with nothing to walk to like a book store, coffee shop, or
small grocery store. He said if the City wants areas like the West End development they
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2016
Page 12
need to start doing it now. Zimmerman stated that part of the issue may be that the market
needs to catch up because ther� aren't enough people in the area yet to have a successful
coffee shop, etc. but there may be more demand in the future.
Segelbaum asked if the property were zoned Commercial if a credit union would be a
pPrmitted use. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why the proposed zoning is Business and
Professional Offices if the property owner has an offer from a credit union. Waldhauser said
th�re are some commercial uses nearby but it might not be so bad to have one offic�
building in the area.
Segelbaum said just because the property hasn't been developed into R-4 yet, doesn't
mean that it won't be in the future. He said it seems appropriate to make this a walkable
area and he is not sure this proposal gets the City where it wants to be. He added that it
seems like "spot zoning."
Johnson questioned if a credit union would be allowed if the property was zoned Mixed Use.
Zimmerman said it would depend on how the language was writtsn and what the vision is
far the area. Johnson asked if the current I-394 Zoning Code language would need to be
cornpletely re-invented. Zimmerman said the I-394 language was tailored to the I-394
corridar, so i# couldn't be used in this area now, but it could maybe be scaled down and
improved for use in this area.
Baker said he is opposed to this proposal because it feels like "spot zoning." He said if the
p�operty end� up being a fast food use for a couple of years during the Comprehensive
Planning update process that feels more flexible to him than a credit union. Kluchka agreed
and said he would like there to be some more patience and time with this property. He said
pushing the current proposal because of perceived mistakes isn't a way to plan and he
would rather see a r�estaurant type of use on this property and he would also like to see the
properties to the west redeveloped inta residential properties. Segelbaum agreed.
Waldhauser agreed and said she is s�Ompathetic to the property owner but she thinks the
current zoning is appropriate.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
denial of the proposal to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
High Density Residential to Commercial-Office and to recommend denial of the propasal
to rezone the property from High Density R�sidential (R-4) to Business and Professional
Offices.
--Short Reces�--
6. R�ports on Meetings ofi the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Gouncil, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman discussed the variance requests on the upcoming Board ofZoning Appeals
agenda and stated that there will be a presentation of the new Brookview Community
Center at the next Planning Commission meeting.
aV?ir?�i:��� c��fihe Golden Valley Planning Commission
i1��w,� ��; 2C�16
P�c�e: �3
7. At��r �usiness
• Council Liaison Report
Council IVlember Schmidgall said the Hello apartm�nts, the Cornerstone Creek
apartments and the Laurel Ponds project are we11 underway: He said he is excited about
the proposed new Brookview Commur�ity Center and gave an update on the Douglas
Clrive reconstruction project.
8. Adjournment
Th� meeting was adjourned at 8:49 pm.
��
��•.
,l���n !�i chka, Secretary ' a Wittman, Administrative Assistar�t