02-26-18 PC Minutes
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, February 26, 2018. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Black, Blum, Brookins, Johnson,
Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
February 12, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page five and stated that the word
“developer” should be changed to the word “landlord.”
MOVED
by Brookins, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
approve the February 12, 2018, minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) – 700 Meadow
Lane North – SU07-11
Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP (Mortenson)
Address: 700 Meadow Lane North
Purpose: To combine two existing parcels of land.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to
consolidate Lot 1 and Lot 4 of the Mortenson campus located at 700 Meadow Lane North.
The consolidation would allow for an enclosed connection to be constructed between two
existing buildings. He showed the Commissioners renderings of what the proposed
connection would look like.
Segelbaum questioned why subdivision standards are being used when these properties
are part of a PUD. Zimmerman explained that the Minor PUD Amendment proposal will
only have to be considered by the City Council, but that the Lot Consolidation process
requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained that the Highway 55 frontage road only
serves Mortenson so the City would like to vacate the road and turn it back to Mortenson
for maintenance. However, the City would retain easements for utilities, a public sidewalk,
and a future signed bike route. He added that the City is also requesting dedication of right-
of-way along Meadow Lane for a possible future turn lane.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 2
Johnson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Johnson closed the public hearing.
Blum said the proposal seems reasonable and meets the City’s requirements. Segelbaum
agreed that the proposal meets the eight conditions for approval.
MOVED
by Blum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision (lot consolidation) at 700 Meadow Lane North
subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Engineer’s memorandum, dated February 21, 2018, shall become part of this
approval.
2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final
Plat.
3. If required, a park dedication fee shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
3. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – 8806 Olson Memorial
Highway – Class III Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District
Applicant: Latitude 14 Inc. (Ann & Tarique Ahmed)
Address: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow a Class III restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District
Goellner stated that the property at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway is guided and zoned
Commercial. She explained that the existing Perkins restaurant is a Class I restaurant that
doesn’t serve liquor and therefore did not require a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed
new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant that does serve liquor and requires a
Conditional Use Permit.
Goellner referred to an aerial photo of the site and discussed the existing site conditions
th
which includes: two entrances on 7 Avenue, a 164-seat, 4,713 square foot restaurant, and
71 parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing building
with the addition of a 500 square foot patio on the west side of the building, 74 parking
spaces, and will have 144 seats.
Goellner discussed the parking and reiterated that there are currently 71 existing parking
spaces and 74 proposed parking spaces. She stated that the applicant is required to have
94 parking spaces because of the additional patio and bar areas. She noted that the
applicant has considered a number of changes to their plans in order to accommodate
additional parking spaces including eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing
the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into the plan, but they
want to apply for a variance to allow 20 fewer parking spaces than required. Goellner
added that the applicant spoke with neighboring property owners TruStone Financial and
Red Lobster but were unable to come to a parking arrangement with either of them.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 3
Goellner explained that the applicant’s noted reasons for requesting a parking variance
include: there is no room to expand the parking lot without a variance, the outdoor seating
will only be used four months of the year, the Met Council counts patios at a lower ratio for
sewer and water charges, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Edina count outdoor patio
seating differently, other restaurants in Golden Valley with patios are in PUDs, it is difficult
to add a liquor license and reinvest in the building without a variance, and the overall seat
count will be reduced from the existing Perkins.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending that this application be continued to the April 9,
2018, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to go before the
Board of Zoning Appeals with their variance request. However, if the Planning Commission
wants to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit at this time, staff recommends
that a condition of approval be added to state that a variance of 20 parking spaces must be
approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Waldhauser stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t typically recommend approval of
anything that they know is going to require a variance in the future. Goellner stated that the
only reason to move forward is if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the parking
count as it stands today.
Blum questioned if the variance process should take place before the Planning
Commission process. He stated that he doesn’t want to recommend approval for this
applicant if the Planning Commission isn’t willing to do the same thing for all applicants. He
said he thinks the Planning Commission should discuss specific parking requirements in
order to benefit this and other applications, but he wants the process to be fair to everyone.
Goellner reiterated that staff is recommending continuing this item to the April 9 Planning
Commission meeting.
Waldhauser noted that the existing restaurant received variances when it was originally
built and asked what type of variances were granted. Goellner stated that Perkins was
th
granted variances from the parking lot setback requirements along Highway 55 and 7
Avenue, and that the building was conforming and did not require any variances.
Segelbaum asked if the patio were not being proposed if that space could be used for
parking. Goellner said she isn’t sure how usable the space along the west property line
th
would be. Segelbaum asked if parking is allowed on 7 Avenue. Goellner said yes, parking
th
is available on the north side of 7 Avenue until bike lanes are added in the future, but
those parking spaces don’t count toward the applicant’s parking requirement. Segelbaum
asked what the City would do if parking was deemed to be a problem on this site. Goellner
said the City would work with the applicant regarding adjusting their hours of operation or
ask them to pursue a shared parking agreement with neighboring property owners.
Segelbaum asked if the City approves the proposal and it turns out that the parking is
insufficient if the City can require anything of the applicant. Zimmerman said that the
Conditional Use Permit could not be rescinded if the parking is insufficient so the City
should be comfortable with what is being proposed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 4
Black asked if there have been problems with parking variances issued in the past.
Goellner said that to her knowledge, there haven’t been any issues, but that she would do
further research. Zimmerman added that parking requirements change over time and that
staff has been considering looking at the parking requirements again especially for patios.
Blum asked if the applicant has said they are planning to invest less in the project in order
to meet the City’s requirements. Goellner said yes, the applicant has reduced the patio by
1,500 square feet, thereby reducing their seating count and capacity as well. Blum asked if
the applicant is still interested in their original plan if a variance for parking is granted.
Goellner said she thinks the applicant would still be interested in their original plans.
Johnson asked if it is physically impossible to get 94 parking spaces on this site. Goellner
said yes, and explained that any restaurant with a bar area would not be able to meet the
parking requirements.
Blum asked if this parcel is within one of the City’s upcoming proposed area plans that are
looking to make the area more walkable. Goellner said yes, this street is being considered
as part of a future pedestrian or transit oriented overlay in order to encourage shared
parking, buildings closer to the street, more walkable neighborhoods, and shared uses.
Blum asked Goellner if she is aware of terms that leave open the possibility for the City to
come back and modify Conditional Use Permits to match future plans of public
transportation or overlay districts. Goellner stated that any conditions written into a
Conditional Use Permit need to be very closely tied to the factors of consideration used
when approving a Conditional Use Permit.
Waldhauser asked if the City knows TruStone Financial’s objection to shared parking.
Goellner said she doesn’t know, but the applicant could speak to that.
Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, stated that when they initially started the project the floor
plan was much different because they didn’t realize that the parking requirements are
based on gross square footage so when they submitted their plans they were told they did
the parking calculations wrong. She stated that there is no way they could get 94 parking
spaces even if they didn’t have a patio. She gave some parking requirement examples from
other cities and stated that the area they are proposing for the patio is of no use for parking
and is only good for drive aisle space. She added that they are not expecting there to be a
problem with the 74 parking spaces they are proposing.
Waldhauser asked about TruStone’s objection to shared parking.
Tarique Ahmed, Applicant, stated that when they initially talked to TruStone they were not
interested in shared parking because they feel they don’t have enough parking spaces. He
stated that the bar area requires 11 parking spaces but the bar only has 10 seats. The
restaurant has 108 seats and the patio is seasonal so he believes they will have more than
enough parking. Waldhauser asked if the 108 restaurant seats includes the patio space.
Ahmed said there are 144 seats total with the patio. Freeman added that they have never
seen the existing Perkins parking lot full either.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 5
Blum asked Ahmed if he has spoken to the property owners across the street. Ahmed said
there is a brewery proposed for that location so parking there is not an option. He stated
that he also talked to Red Lobster but they weren’t interested in shared parking either.
Blum noted that there is a discrepancy between the plans and the staff report regarding the
dumpster enclosure. Freeman stated that they are going to move the dumpster location in
order to get three more parking spaces.
Johnson asked if the hours of operation are determined by the City. Ahmed said no, they
are standard restaurant hours and they won’t stay open later for the bar.
Angell referred to the proposed patio storage structure and asked if it would be a temporary
or a permanent structure. Freeman said she is thinking it will be a temporary storage
structure.
Johnson opened the public hearing.
Wyck Linder, Property Manager, TruStone Financial, said they want to be a good neighbor
they just don’t feel like they have enough information regarding a shared parking
agreement. He asked how many parking spaces the applicant needs and if it would be a
perpetual easement or agreement. He reiterated that they want to work with the applicant,
they just need more information.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Johnson closed the public hearing.
Zimmerman stated that the crux of the problem is that this proposed restaurant serves
liquor. The parking requirements are almost double for restaurants that serve liquor. He
stated that maybe the parking ratios aren’t right for just a restaurant with a bar, but they
may make sense for other types of bars. Waldhauser said she is sure that residents want
the nicest facility possible and that it makes sense to reconsider some of the City’s parking
requirements.
Segelbaum said he doesn’t see a need to table the proposal and make the applicant wait
for the Board of Zoning Appeals consideration. He said he feels the Planning Commission
can make a recommendation on this proposal with the condition that the Board of Zoning
Appeals grants the variance for parking. Blum questioned if the Planning Commission
would be comfortable with that process for everyone in a similar situation. Zimmerman said
it has been the practice in the past to add a condition relying on the approval of the Board
of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he can see in other situations where it would be
important to hear from the Board of Zoning Appeals first, but this proposal is a little more
straightforward. Waldhauser said she would like to wait because there seems to be a lot of
moving parts with this proposal. She added that the applicant might get more of what they
want if they wait which would also give them more time to talk to TruStone. Black stated
that if the Planning Commission recommends approval it makes it seem like they are
approving a variance and that is not their job. Segelbaum stated he is in favor of
recommending approval for a restaurant in this area and he hopes the application moves
forward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 6
Blum questioned if it is not part of the Planning Commission’s purview to come up with a
condition that helps obtain a benefit of some kind for the City such as water quality. He
questioned if the Planning Commission could require something different because they
know there are future plans for the area. Zimmerman stated that the City is limited by state
statute. He said if a condition of approval solves a problem that is great, but the City can’t
use conditions to do something further afield, they have to look at the impacts of the
proposal. Blum suggested making space for public transportation and not adding more
parking spaces in a place that provides alcohol.
Segelbaum said he doesn’t think this is the place to discuss the larger issues and it comes
down to if the Planning Commission thinks the number of parking spaces are sufficient.
Johnson questioned what would happen if the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance
for 19 fewer parking spaces instead of 20. Segelbaum said the application would then
come back to the Planning Commission.
Waldhauser questioned if the applicant wants to wait. Goellner said the applicant would like
to move as quickly as possible. Waldhauser noted that there are relatively few
modifications needed and questioned if the patio could be considered in a second phase.
Johnson said this is the plan they were presented with and if the Planning Commission
votes on it now, it goes forward with 20 fewer parking spaces. Goellner said it would be
helpful if the Planning Commission said what they are comfortable with and if they want a
patio on the south side of the building or not.
Johnson said this an opportunity to do a novel thing and stated that this proposal is a
restaurant that is not focused on the bar. Waldhauser stated that if the proposal is tabled
the City isn’t locked into anything.
Black asked when the City Council will hear this proposal. Goellner stated that if the item is
tabled it would go to the May 1 City Council meeting. If the Planning Commission
recommends approval it would go to the April 17 City Council meeting.
Angell said he’d be comfortable recommending approval of the proposal with the condition
that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a parking variance. He added that the regional
trends show the number of required parking spaces going down. Segelbaum agreed and
stated that the applicant wants to have sufficient parking or their business won’t be
successful.
Waldhauser stated that if the surrounding area can absorb the parking on the street and
this area is industrial it really isn’t hurting anybody.
Johnson asked the Commissioners if they had any objections to tabling the proposal and
moving it on to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum said he’d like to vote on the
proposal now, Brookins said he would feel comfortable voting on it now as well.
Zimmerman stated that there would need to either be a motion to vote on the proposal or to
table it.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 7
Johnson asked the applicant if they would like to move forward or wait. Ann Ahmed,
Applicant stated there are future pedestrian plans for this area and that they are proposing
a bike rack and that people will want to run and walk in the area and they are prepared for
that. She said she would like to move forward with their proposal and not table it. Freeman
added that they are required to provide five bicycle parking spaces but they are proposing
10. She said they would also like to know if they can have the larger patio on the south side
of the building, if they can lose 11 parking spaces, and what kind of agreement they would
have to have with TruStone. Goellner stated that if the larger patio is put back in the plans
the variance request will be really big. Zimmerman stated that if the patio was done as a
second phase that may give the applicant time to work on getting a shared parking
agreement. Segelbaum said it seems that the applicant wants to move forward and how the
parking agreement looks is up to them. Blum said the timeframe they are considering is two
weeks. He said he wants to see development happen but he wants the best benefit to the
City.
MOVED
by Blum, seconded Waldhauser and motion failed five to one to table this
proposal. Commissioner Blum voted yes.
MOVED
by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried five to one to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #160 subject to the following findings
and conditions. Commissioner Blum voted no.
Findings:
Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use:
1. Based on the success of other restaurants in
the community, there is evidence that the proposed Class III Restaurant use is appropriate.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
2. Class III Restaurants are consistent
with the Retail/Service designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan
Map.
Effect on Property Values:
3. Renovations to the building on the subject property may
have a positive impact on its own estimated value, but staff does not anticipate that
the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property
values.
Effect on Traffic:
4. The number of trips generated by the proposed restaurant are
minimal. The current restaurant generates a very comparable amount of traffic to the
site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any
negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting conversion from a Class I
Restaurant to a Class III Restaurant.
Effect of Increases in Population and Density:
5. The proposed use may generate a
minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of
employees will be limited based on the size of the building. The potential for a
minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health,
safety, and welfare of the community.
Increase in Noise Levels:
6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a
significant increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the
proposed uses will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the
impact to the surroundings. The outdoor patio dining space is relatively small and is
immediately adjacent to other businesses that generate similar noise levels.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 8
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. With the interior and exterior remodeling, staff anticipates an
improvement in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all
regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as
stated in the Golden Valley City Code.
Other Impacts to the City and Residents:
10. Staff finds that the parking plan
submitted on February 20, 2018, will be sufficient for the proposed restaurant, but a
variance to the City Code must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in order
for this Conditional Use Permit approval to be valid. Therefore, staff is
recommending approval of CUP 160 only if a variance for 20 parking spaces is
received. If additional interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space is
added in the future, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by
the City. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use.
Conditions:
1. The plans by submitted by Shea Design on February 20, 2018, shall become a part
of this approval.
2. A variance of 20 spaces off the required 94 spaces for a total of 74 spaces must be
approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the event that complaints to the City
regarding parking are deemed to be significant by the City Manager or his/her
designee, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the days or hours of
operation or the use of a shared parking agreement with adjacent property owner(s)
in order to address parking concerns.
3. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved by the City in order to
expand interior dining space, bar area, or outdoor patio space in the future.
4. Hours of operation for the restaurant are limited to 11 am to 10 pm on Sunday
through Thursday and 11 am to 11 pm on Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise
further limited by an approved City Liquor License.
5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
Council Liaison Report
Schmidgall reported that the City is going to have pilot program of Lime Bikes and stated
that there will be a meeting about it on Wednesday night.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 9
Schmidgall stated that Tennant has decided not to move forward with their campus
proposals. Zimmerman added that Tennant is still planning to do the Damascus Way
portion of the project.
Comp Plan Work Session – Water Resources
Goellner introduced the Water Resources plan and covered main points of the chapter.
She noted that there was more regulation involved in this topic and therefore less
flexibility. She indicated that the Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP) would be
described in more detail and that the appendix would be very long and very technical
due to the nature of the topics covered. Prior to the release of a final draft, staff would
continue to revise and simplify the language in the chapter, including placing a greater
emphasis on the aspirations and barriers around each section and including key points.
She added that some elements of the implementation plan would center on education
rather than enforcement since enforcement is often completed by other agencies.
Waldhauser said that she appreciated the historical context that was written into the
chapter and that it was important information for the casual reader.
Johnson agreed that more detail on the IRP would be helpful. Waldhauser stated that
much of the information was in the document, but that there could be a stronger
explanation. She said the problems with infrastructure were not everywhere, but that it
would be important to focus on the critical points.
Blum said he was glad to see Key Point #2 included and that it resonated with him
because including additional trees and vegetation was important to address water
quality.
Johnson asked about the definition of impaired waters. Goellner said that staff would
likely include call out boxes with definitions of key technical terms such as impaired
waters.
Waldhauser asked about the City’s use of chlorides on streets to treat ice. Black
confirmed that the City has been successful in reducing salt usage on roadways, but
educating property owners to reduce salt is crucial. Goellner said that education around
various topics might need to be carried out through partnerships rather than adding to
staff responsibilities.
Comp Plan Discussion – Economic Competitiveness
Zimmerman introduced the Economic Competitiveness plan and said that in general
Golden Valley was in a good place with respect to its business climate and that the
focus of the chapter really was on understanding and supporting the needs of the
existing businesses. He pointed out the four focus areas in the plan, which are
Employment, Redevelopment, Workforce, and Business Development.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 2018
Page 10
Waldhauser pointed out the graph that discussed the education levels of Golden Valley
residents and indicated it would be great to get information on non-residents are
employed in Golden Valley. Goellner added that providing similar information from
Hennepin County or the Metro Area would be a good point of comparison.
Zimmerman highlighted the number of businesses that had expanded or constructed
facilities in Golden Valley since the last Comprehensive Plan was approved.
Black asked why it should matter to non-business owners that Golden Valley has a
strong business presence and suggested that be referenced in the text.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm.
�
�� �
Ron lum, Secretary Li'a Wittman, Administrative Assistant