07-25-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 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,
July 25, 2016. Vice Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, and
Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate
Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Commissioner Segelbaum was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 27, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
approve the June 27, 2016, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— Central Park West—
Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100— PU-121, Amendment#2
Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc.
Address: Unassigned (Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100)
Purpose: To construct an 11 story office building and a 1,214 stall parking
ramp on the border of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and discussed the applicant's proposal to
construct an 11 story office building and a 7 level, 1,214 stall parking ramp. She noted
that the landscaping, lighting and other civil engineering plans match the original PUD
proposal for Central Park West. She showed the Commissioners architectural elevations
and renderings and discussed the building materials which will include glass, brick, and
precast spandrel panels. She discussed the proposed amenities including: a retail
space/cafe facing the park, outdoor meeting space, a skyway to the parking ramp,
balcony views of downtown, and a bicycle storage room with showers and lockers.
Goellner referred to a plan showing the entrances and exits on the site and discussed
how they have changed from the original approval. She noted that the parking ramp
entrance on the north side has been moved to the east side along Lilac Drive and that
the ramp has been tilted slightly on the site to better align with Lilac Drive and to allow
the Central Park area to be larger. She added that the intersection of Quentin Avenue
and Wayzata Blvd. will be improved by adding an additional turn lane and all-way stop
signs.
Goellner referred to the north facing wall of the parking ramp and stated that the original
proposal included a "green" vegetated wall. She stated that in order to meet the intent of
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 2
the original concept, the applicant is proposing that a mural be painted instead because
vegetation won't survive on a north facing wall. She explained the proposed mural
design process and the timeline for community meetings and installation of the mural.
She added that staff is recommending a committee be formed consisting of one member
from the Golden Valley Community Foundation, one Planning Commissioner, two
residents of the South Tyrol/Kennedy Addition, one St. Louis Park resident, property
owners Ryan Companies and Excelsior group, and City Planning staff from Golden
Valley and St. Louis Park.
Goellner discussed the parking requirements and noted that 1,173 spaces are required
and 1,214 spaces are being provided. 118 bicycle spaces are required and 126 spaces
are being provided.
Waldhauser asked if the change in setbacks from the original approval are due to the
tilting of the parking ramp. Goellner said yes. Baker asked if tilting the parking ramp
increased the amount of office space. Goellner said no, but it will increase the amount of
green space.
Kluchka asked if the City was involved in the decision to change the vegetated wall to a
painted mural. Goellner stated that the first choice was a vegetated wall, the second
choice was a mural, and the third choice was metal panels across the facade. She
added that staff has had conversations with the applicant and that the City wants this to
be a dynamic space and have a sense of place for the community.
Blum noted that in the original PUD proposal the parking ramp was entirely in Golden
Valley and now a portion of it will be in St. Louis Park. He asked if that will affect any
agreements or negotiations between the two cities. Goellner stated that there are shared
service agreements in place and explained that Golden Valley will permit the parking
ramp and St. Louis Park will collect a portion of the revenue collected based on the
square footage and vice versa for the office building.
Johnson referred to the make-up of the membership on the proposed mural committee
and stated that it doesn't represent the entire community, rather just one neighborhood.
He asked about involving additional people and the City Manager or elected officials.
Goellner stated that they are hoping the community will be represented by a Planning
Commissioner and by a member of the Golden Valley Community Foundation, and also
during the community engagement day. She added that the City Manager will likely be
involved in the process and that the Planning Commission could recommend that the
City Council also have a member on the committee.
Blum asked if there are bike and pedestrian pathways planned for the Wayzata Blvd.
Highway 100 overpass. Goellner stated that a feasibility study is just wrapping up for
Wayzata Blvd. that has several alternatives for Wayzata Blvd. in it. When the feasibility
study is complete there will likely be a recommendation from all of the parties involved
including Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Hennepin County. The funding
of the improvements will most likely come from the City's Capital Improvement Program,
Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Council.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 3
Baker noted that the application made reference to a bike connection between the
proposed office building and the Cedar Lake Trail and asked about the nature of that
connection. Goellner stated that the connection would not necessarily be owned and
operated by the applicant of this property, but she believes there have been discussions
regarding a connection in St. Louis Park.
Johnson noted that traffic was a big issue during the review of the original PUD approval
process. He referred to the staff report that states if there is reason to do another traffic
study one would be done, but he wonders if they can be more proactive about requiring
additional traffic studies. Goellner stated that the City is requiring that traffic counts be re-
done after the office is occupied to make sure that traffic is moving the way it is
supposed to. Baker asked if the additional studies are the City's or the developer's
responsibility. Goellner stated that the property owners would pay for the additional
studies. Waldhauser asked if the office tenants will be required to have staggered start
and end times to help with traffic issues. Goellner said she thinks that would likely be a
component of their Travel Demand Management Plan.
Tony Barranco, Vice President of Development, Ryan Companies, stated that much of
the foundation for this phase of the proposal was put in place during the original PUD
approval process. He stated that the second phase will occur within two to five years
after the first phase. He noted that Excelsior Group has purchased the site and that Ryan
Companies will be partners with them by supporting the construction and leading the
entitlement process. They are both mutually developing the property and will be owners
of the property. He reiterated that they will get the permit for the parking ramp from the
City of Golden Valley and the permit for the office building will be issued by St. Louis
Park. He discussed the design of the office building and stated that they are trying to
create an office environment for the modern work force. He said they that they don't want
to build a glass tower that feels unfriendly, they want to build a warm space that is more
hospitable and welcoming to patrons, guests and workers. He stated that 95% of the
building materials will be Class 1 materials, the brick will have a metallic sheen, there will
be full height glass on many levels, and wood under the soffit with signature arched
windows to give it a warehouse feel. The building will be LEED certified and will focus on
the connection to Central Park West. It will also focus on bike connections and outdoor
space with each floor having some outdoor space. He referred to the subtle shift/tilt of
the parking ramp and stated that changing the ramp gave the park an additional 7,000
square feet of space, it gave the apartment owners to the north, and offices to the east
some relief from the view of the hard edge of the ramp and it removes the direct view of
the ramp and headlights. It also provided some important safety areas by allowing a
pedestrian connection from Quentin Avenue to go through and into the park without
crossing through the active driveway area. He referred to the north side of the parking
ramp and said staff has made it clear that planning something for that facade is very
important. He said it is important to them as well because it is a critical signature
gateway to their overall project. He said they were concerned about the longevity of a
vegetative system especially on the north side of a building so they are proposing ground
plantings and a mural concept as an alternative. He discussed the history of previous
projects and past community engagement processes they've done with the artist that will
be working on the mural.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 4
Kluchka asked about the proposed spandrel material. Karl Drecktrah, Director of
Architecture, Ryan Companies, stated that spandrel is an architectural precast, concrete
product that will be located between the top of the window heads and the bottom of the
window sills from floor to floor.
Kluchka asked if a major tenant has been identified because the look of this proposed
building is similar to the look of the new US Bank Stadium. Barranco said no, they have
had discussions with a significant, major tenant, and they need a major tenant before
they start construction, but they have nothing to announce at this point. Kluchka asked if
the proposed second office building would be a twin of this building. Barranco said it will
be an exact twin of the first building with two exceptions: the second building will have a
slightly different orientation the first floor will have through access and an open and
dramatic connection to the park.
Blum referred to the crisscrossing paths in the park and asked how pedestrians will
interact at those intersections. Barranco said they would like to have a direct connection
on the south end of the ramp to the walk system and they know where they will have the
bike entrance, but they haven't spent a lot of time yet on modal separation.
Blum asked if the retail/cafe space would be open to the public. Barranco said yes and
added that the retail space will flow out to the park space.
Waldhauser referred to the landscaping and asked Barranco if they are responsible for
the trees for one year, or if their responsibility is longer. Kevin Pfeiffer, Landscape
Architect, stated that most of the trees will be located in areas with significant open
space and added that they require their contractor to warranty the trees for 1 to 2 years.
Kluchka said he wants to talk about the building versus the parking ramp. He said he
sees a lot of things happening, but he doesn't know what this building wants to be. He
questioned how the mural could help bring the two together as a connected unit and
added that he would recommend and encourage mixed media for the mural, not just
paint. Barranco said they share the concern that the mural look like an architectural
project and not an art project, and that it fits in with its surroundings because they don't
want to invest in something that doesn't look great. Kluchka questioned if they have to
use the word mural or if they can leave it open to other solutions. Barranco said they
would be open to considering other ideas or a combination of a mural and other
materials. Drecktrah added that the design team will stay actively engaged to make sure
it all works together.
Johnson referred to the parking for the hotel and said he remembered talking about
using the residential building as a pass through or short cut. He asked if that is still under
consideration and if there is a snow removal plan in place. Barranco stated that the
residential building is under different ownership but there will be a door connection in the
north side of the ramp for hotel guests. He referred to the question about snow removal
and stated that there is an agreement in place that covers maintenance and service of
the green areas and the sidewalks including snow removal.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 5
Baker opened the public hearing.
Gary Cohen, 4530 Douglas Avenue, said he knows the importance of public meetings
and that he has attended many of them regarding this proposal. He stated that this
current proposal is a vast improvement over past proposals and he is impressed with the
quality of the project. He said he is not concerned about plantings or murals but the
elephant in the room and his primary concern is traffic. He said traffic can be unbearable
and the Wayzata frontage road can back up to Olive Garden. He said he knows that
possible changes haven't been finalized yet, but traffic engineers continue to say there is
no problem. He noted that at prior meetings he's called for continued studies and
suggested that continued studies be made a conditional of approval.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said she believes there is a provision in place to repeat traffic studies as
more development occurs. Baker agreed and added that staggered start and end times
might be another consideration. Goellner stated there will be future analysis to determine
if trip distribution is occurring as anticipated.
Kluchka said he loves the design of the building. He referred to condition #10 in the staff
report and said he would like to change the word "mural" to "public art" instead because
there is an opportunity for mixed media rather than just paint. Waldhauser said she has
seen both paint and mixed media projects done really well. Baker agreed that just a
mural might not be what the City wants. Johnson reiterated that he would like to open up
the design process to allow more people to participate and to possibly have the City
Manager and/or City Council Members be a part of that group. Baker suggested that
decision be left up to the Council. He said he imagines that the City Manager will
designate staff to attend the group's meetings and that information will funnel back to the
City Council. Johnson said he just wants more than the closest neighborhood involved.
Goellner noted that condition #11 also uses the word "mural" and said that she would
change the wording to "public art."
Baker asked Commissioner Waldhauser if her questions about the proposed trees have
been addressed. Waldhauser noted that the trees are probably more in St. Louis Park's
purview, but it sounds like the longevity of the trees and landscaping has been thought
about.
Kluchka asked if additional traffic studies should be added as a condition of approval.
Baker said he would like there to be ongoing traffic studies. Kluchka questioned how St.
Louis Park is reviewing the traffic issues. Goellner said she believes it is addressed in
their conditions of approval, or they may have a separate agreement. She suggested
language be added to condition #6 regarding the monitoring of ongoing traffic concerns.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Central Park West PUD No. 121, Amendment #2, subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 6
Findinqs:
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site, such as the
proximity to high retaining walls and highway traffic 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
approximately 72 new trees and 256 shrubs 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 an 11-story office building and 7-level
parking ramp.
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 the Class A office space
available to the I-394 corridor, which is a desirable location with many major
employers.
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
and bicycle 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.
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by Ryan Companies submitted on June 28, 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, July 11, 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, July 1, 2016, shall become a
part of this approval.
4. The City of St. Louis Park approves that portion of the Planned Unit Development
within its jurisdiction.
5. The east-west driveway located along the south side of the proposed office and
ramp property (Lot 2) must be modified to include only one-way access in the
westward direction. The driveway must be 20 feet in width and include the
appropriate curb tapers, signage, and pavement markings.
6. The property owners of any parcel in the Central Park West PUD shall adhere to the
Travel Demand Management Plan approved for the West End Redevelopment,
which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. The applicant shall provide an update
to the Travel Demand Management Plan and must receive staff approval prior to the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 7
issuance of a building permit. Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, the
owner will be required to update the plan or submit a new plan to the Golden Valley
and St. Louis Park 1-394 Joint Task Force in the future as needed.
7. If there are complaints from hotel users or the hotel owner, IoCated on Lot 3 of PUD
121, that overflow parking in the parking ramp is not convenient or available, the City
reserves the right to require that up to 110 parking spaces be signed and/or striped
to designate hotel parking.
8. The applicant shall dedicate easements for public use of certain sidewalks and trails
located within the City of Golden Valley, both inside and outside the Linear Park, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney.
9. Because the attached PUD Plan includes final design plans for only Phase 1 of the
Office and Parking Ramp, the applicant or future property owner must submit an
application for a Major PUD Amendment, and receive approval therefor, when final
design plans for Phase 2 of the Office and Parking Ramp are prepared, prior to
issuance of any building permits for Phase 2 of the Office and Parking Ramp.
10.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash deposit to the City of Golden
Valley for the cost of the proposed public art installation on the parking ramp fa�ade.
11.The applicant shall engage community members in the design process for the public
art proposed for the parking ramp fa�ade, in a process that is acceptable to the City
Manager or his/her designee.
12.The applicant shall pay all required fees and costs incurred by the City related to the
review and processing of the application, including legal and professional consulting
costs.
13.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— Temporary Family
Health Care Dwellings —ZO00-106
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider language regarding Temporary Family Health Care
Dwellings.
Goellner explained that a bill was recently passed by the Minnesota Legislature creating
a process for landowners to place temporary health care dwellings on their property.
She explained that a temporary health care dwelling is defined as transitional housing
for those requiring assistance. She said they are typically a modular/manufactured
home or recreational vehicle under 300 square feet in size with no permanent
foundation. She stated that staff is recommending that the City prohibit temporary health
care dwellings in all zoning districts because of the potential negative impacts including:
health and safety issues, the lack of adequate space, and noise and visual nuisance.
She added that communities must opt-out by September 1 or begin allowing these
structures.
Baker asked if any communities are not opting-out. Goellner said the only City she
knows of that is considering allowing these types of dwellings is New Hope, but they will
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 8
likely opt-out as well. Baker noted that it seems that the League of MN Cities is strongly
recommending opting out. Goellner agreed. Waldhauser stated that some variation
might be acceptable. Goellner stated that there are other solutions available such as
Permanent Accessory Dwelling Units.
Baker asked Goellner if she knows the history of this legislation. Goellner said a
representative from a more rural area proposed this to meet the need for transitional
housing.
Johnson asked how long one of this type of dwelling units could stay on someone's
property. Waldhauser said one year. Goellner said cities could extend that and make
their own rules.
Johnson asked what the setbacks would be. Goellner said they would be the same as
an accessory structure. Waldhauser asked if a temporary dwelling/recreational vehicle
could be on a driveway. Zimmerman stated that a recreational vehicle could be located
on a driveway or in the side or rear yard. Waldhauser said she thinks allowing a small
recreational vehicle on a driveway might not be terrible.
Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Baker closed the public hearing.
Blum stated that based on the materials in the agenda packet this won't provide a
quality, long term solution. He added that they will change the neighborhood character
in a negative way and would not be consistent with the City's plans for residential areas.
Johnson said he is in favor of allowing temporary dwellings. He stated that if the State
said cities should allow this, and if people meet the requirements, the City should give
them the opportunity to take advantage of this legislation.
Baker stated that the City could opt-out of this now and work on an ordinance that would
allow this sort of use in the future. Johnson reiterated that people should be able to take
advantage of the State law. Waldhauser said she doesn't think there would be very
many of these structures, but the speed with which these permits would have to be
granted would not give staff enough time for review. She said she would like more time
to work on a different ordinance in the future.
MOVED by Blum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend
approval of amending Section 11.04 of the Zoning Code prohibiting Temporary Family
Health Care Dwellings. Commissioner Johnson voted no.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 25, 2016
Page 9
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Baker gave an update on the last LRT meeting he attended. He said they are continuing
to discuss the implications of the Legislature, the lack of work force, the park and ride at
Golden Valley Road, access to the park bike trail and the proposed welcome center in
Wirth Park.
5. Other Business
• Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion
Zimmerman stated that he included a General Land Use Map in the agenda packet
because he would like the Commissioners to indicate on the map areas they would like
to change, or areas they think will change as a part of the upcoming Comprehensive
Plan update. He said staff will use this information for the Comprehensive Plan open
house to be held on September 19. He discussed the City's Comprehensive Plan page
on the web site and the online branding survey.
Baker asked about the make-up of the new Bike and Pedestrian Task Force. Goellner
stated that staff received 18 applications and 10 members were appointed by the City
Council.
• Council Liaison Report
Council Member Schmidgall gave an update on the last City Council meeting where
they approved the Conditional Use Permit for Big Deal's Liquidation. He also discussed
the City's upcoming citizen survey.
Waldhauser asked about the new gazebo at Brookview. Schmidgall said the gazebo is
a relatively modest investment that he thinks will be well used. He stated that due to
threatening weather the ribbon cutting for the new gazebo has been re-scheduled.
Kluchka asked if the City Council has considered the rezoning proposal for 9050 Golden
Valley Road. Zimmerman stated that City Council denied that proposal.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
. �` Wl
John KI ka, Secretary Lisa Wi man, Administrative Assistant