04-09-18 PC Minutes
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 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, April 9, 2018. Secretary Blum called the meeting to order at 7:11 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Black, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum and
Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Angell, Johnson and Baker were
absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
March 12, 2018, Special Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED
by Brookins, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
approve the March 12, 2018, minutes as submitted.
March 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED
by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve
the March 26, 2018, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing – Major PUD Amendment – 701 Lilac Drive –
Tennant PUD #114 – PU114-A3
Applicant: Transform Minnesota (Damascus Way)
Address: 701 Lilac Drive
Purpose: To modify the boundary of the existing Tennant PUD
Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they reviewed a Tennant PUD Amendment
proposal back in October. He explained that a number of the applicant’s land use proposals
have been withdrawn, but the Damascus Way portion of the proposal which involves
removing Damascus from the Tennant PUD is moving forward.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and aerial photos of the property and explained that the
applicant is proposing to relocate the Damascus Way facility to the west, outside of the
PUD, where a vacant house currently sits. He noted that the Planning Commission already
recommended approval of a land use change, a zoning change, and a Conditional Use
Permit for Damascus Way. Zimmerman referred to a drawing showing easements and
explained that some of them will need to be vacated, rededicated, or created as part of the
Final plat. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the PUD Amendment because
all six of the necessary findings have been met.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 2
Waldhauser asked if the current Damascus Way property is being incorporated into the
Tennant PUD. Zimmerman said not yet, Tennant would own the property, and will add it to
the PUD in the future.
Black referred to staff’s condition regarding stormwater management and asked why
Tennant will be responsible when they are not the applicant in this proposal. Zimmerman
stated that Tennant is involved in the PUD agreement for the entire PUD and that
stormwater management issues are still being negotiated.
Segelbaum asked if this proposal is subject to the PUD amenity point requirements.
Zimmerman said no, currently the public amenity points are only required with the creation
of a new PUD, not a PUD amendment.
Segelbaum asked if staff attended the neighborhood meeting. Zimmerman said he did, and
one neighbor who lives to the north of the proposed Damascus Way site also attended.
Blum asked why the right-of-way to the south is being attached to the new Damascus Way
parcel. Zimmerman stated that it is right-of-way that the City and MnDOT don’t want or
need. He referred to an aerial photo and showed how it will be used for a sidewalk
connection in the future. Waldhauser questioned why Tennant isn’t getting additional right-
of-way on their other properties along the frontage road for the future sidewalk. Zimmerman
stated that right-of-way will eventually be required for sidewalk as Tennant’s PUD proposal
moves forward.
Drew Johnson, Oppidan Investment Company, helping facilitate on behalf of Damascus
Way and Tennant, stated he is in agreement with staff’s conditions subject to working out
some of the stormwater issues and how the two parcels relate regarding stormwater.
Blum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Blum
closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said it seems like this is a small advancement on the larger Tennant PUD
proposal they’ve already discussed. Segelbaum agreed and said it satisfies the
requirements and provides benefits in that it makes the PUD more consistent and less of a
hodge podge of different properties so he is in favor of this proposal. Blum agreed and said
this is a good way for the City to be a partner with property owners and to add some value
to the property.
MOVED
by Brookins, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Major PUD Amendment plan for Tennant Companies PUD No. 114,
Amendment #3 subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The modifications do not negatively impact the overall quality of the site, and in fact
advance the opportunity for planned improvements to the Tennant Campus by
clearing land for future redevelopment.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 3
2. The lot being created previously contained a single-family home, so no significant
impacts to desirable portions of the site’s characteristics are likely.
3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating ongoing
uses within one portion of the site and creating opportunities for future
redevelopment, allowing for continued growth of the City’s tax base.
4. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan which calls for the preservation and expansion of
facilities housing major employers; consistent with other redevelopment goals of the
City such as the revitalization of the Douglas Drive Corridor; and would help bring
order to an area that is currently a mix of uses and zoning designations and that
lacks cohesion.
5. The PUD amendment would not impact the general health, safety, or welfare of the
people of the City.
6. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the
existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City
Code.
Conditions:
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering
Division, dated April 5, 2018, shall become a part of this approval.
2. Easements identified within section one of the Engineering memo (Preliminary Plat) shall
be vacated, rededicated, or created as described and included on the Final Plat.
3. The Development Agreement for PUD No. 114 shall be amended to address the timing
of construction of the required stormwater treatment system for the existing Tennant
campus and the new Lot 2.
4. A park dedication fee of $10,044 shall be required prior to the release of the Final Plat.
5. 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 – 730 Florida Avenue –
CU-110 – Amendment #1
Applicant: Import Auto Sales, LLC
Address: 730 Florida Avenue South
Purpose: To allow used motor vehicle sales and automotive repair in the I-394
Mixed Use Zoning District
Zimmerman noted that this property is a multi-tenant building at the corner of Laurel and
Florida Avenues. He explained that the applicant is requesting to amend an existing
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow auto sales and repair in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning
district. He stated that the existing CUP allows for limited auto repair and that the I-394
Mixed Use zoning district allows auto sales and repair with a CUP for uses occupying more
than 10,000 square feet.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 4
Zimmerman discussed the existing conditions and stated that this is the former site of
PRISM, and is a 2.8 acre site with a building footprint of approximately 51,700 square feet
total. 730 Florida Avenue occupies approximately 24,000 square feet and the parking lot is
located on the south half of the lot.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing to construct eight bays for auto repair,
and indoor showroom for display, and an office space for customer service. He noted that
prior to occupancy, the parking lot would be resurfaced and restriped and that there will be
no changes to the exterior of the building except for new signage. He explained that the
hours for sales would be Monday-Thursday 9 am to 8 pm, Saturday 9 am to 6 pm and
Sunday 9 am to 5 pm. The hours for auto repair would be Monday-Friday 8 am to 6 pm and
Saturday 8 am to 2 pm. He stated that the applicant anticipates 500 auto sales per year
and at least two service customers per day.
Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements and stated that the required number of
vehicle parking spaces is 54, and the number of required bicycle spaces is four. He stated
that the previous CUP suggests that there is room for approximately 84 parking spaces so
there should be plenty of capacity to handle the required parking. He stated that staff is
recommending approval of this CUP amendment as it meets the factors listed in Code used
when evaluating Conditional Use Permits.
Zimmerman stated that because this property is in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district a site
plan review is required. He referred to pedestrian circulation and noted that sidewalk along
Florida Ave is already installed and that a defined, landscaped path to the principal
entrance already exists. He referred to parking location and screening and stated that
additional screening, either vegetative or fencing, of the parking lot/inventory storage is
required.
Segelbaum said he knows PRISM hasn’t serviced vehicles at this location for several years
and asked if the existing CUP carries on with this new tenant. Zimmerman stated that the
CUP is tied to the land and is still in force. Since the applicant is proposing to expand the
use it is triggering the need for this CUP amendment.
Segelbaum asked if the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district has any other additional
requirements. Zimmerman said that if the applicant was tearing the building down there
would be more requirements, but they aren’t.
Segelbaum noted that Zimmerman said the screening could be vegetative or fencing, but
he recalls that the City wants to enhance vegetative screening. Zimmerman stated that the
Code isn’t specific about the type of screening used, but the Planning Commission could
encourage the applicant to use natural screening. Waldhauser said she didn’t think the City
wanted to encourage screening for auto dealerships because the cars need to be seen.
She said she thought the screening requirements applied more for employee parking or
other parking lots. Zimmerman said the City has been requiring screening for auto
dealership inventory. Waldhauser said she thinks screening is more of a concern if a
dealership faces a residential area and this does not.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 5
Radu Krisshmaru, Applicant, said he has been in this business for a long time in several
different cities. He stated that the property will be much better looking and that he will
screen the parking lot if required. He questioned how far the screening would have to be
from the parking lot because there isn’t much space for snow storage. Craig Gass,
Counselor Realty, added that they could also do some natural landscaping.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he will be selling new or used cars. Krisshmaru said he
sells newer, used vehicles and that they like to keep a nice, clean looking property.
Segelbaum referred to the number of parking spaces available and asked the applicant if
he intends to have 60 cars in inventory. Krisshmaru said there will be 60 cars outside and
some in the indoor showroom too.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he intends to add signage. Krisshmaru said he will follow
the City’s codes regarding signage.
Waldhauser referred to the lighting in the parking lot and asked the applicant if he will need
different lighting than what is there currently. Krisshmaru said he doesn’t think he’ll need to
add more lighting except for maybe some in the back of the building. Zimmerman stated
that the lighting can be kept as is, but if the applicant changes fixtures then the Code
requirements would apply.
Blum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Blum
closed the public hearing.
Blum referred to the screening of the parking lot and asked about the differences between
other dealerships and what will be required with this applicant. Zimmerman discussed what
was required with the last few auto dealerships and reiterated that the Code just states that
parking lots shall be screened. Blum asked if the Planning Commission can recommend
something specific regarding screening. Zimmerman said yes, the Code says the City may
permit alternative approaches that meet the intent of the Code. Brookins asked if there are
requirements or limitations regarding gates at the entrance. Zimmerman said no, and
added that gates are used more for inventory areas, than sales areas. Blum asked how far
the screening has to be from the parking lot. Zimmerman said the Code doesn’t give a
distance, but the closer the screening is to the street, the better it would be for blocking the
view of vehicles.
Segelbaum asked about snow storage and removal requirements. Zimmerman said the
Code doesn’t specify, but there should be enough room on this site for snow storage.
Segelbaum asked if there are places snow can’t be stored. Zimmerman said typically the
City doesn’t want to see snow stored on top of sensitive landscaping.
Black noted that there are 54 required parking space and that they are expecting to have
84 parking spaces asked if the applicant would be allowed to have more than 30 cars in
inventory at one time. Zimmerman said if there is sufficient space on site, it is left up to the
business owner to make sure they have enough parking spaces on their site for their
customers. Blum agreed that he wants to make sure there is enough parking for staff and
customers. Segelbaum said he has concerns about snow storage as well. Zimmerman
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 6
clarified that the conditions the City can attach to a CUP are things that reasonably mitigate
the concerns the City might have in regard to the use of the property. He stated that a
condition of approval could state that snow shall be stored or removed in way that doesn’t
jeopardize the minimum number of required parking spaces on the site.
Brookins referred to the discussion regarding screening and said he is indifferent about
what type of screening should be allowed and he is open to variations. Blum asked
Brookins if he would distinguish between parking for storage and parking for customers or
staff. Brookins said no, he wouldn’t distinguish between the two. Waldhauser said she
would prefer green screening that includes some grasses and small shrubs. Segelbaum,
Blum, and Brookins agreed. Zimmerman noted that the standards in the Code require four
feet of screening and asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with something less
than that. Waldhauser recommended 2.5 to 3 feet in height. Segelbaum said it is hard to
decide without seeing a specific plan. Blum said it seems reasonable to go with what the
Code prescribes. Segelbaum suggested the applicant show a plan to Council if they’d like
to do something less than what the Code requires. Brookins said he would be comfortable
with staff reviewing the screening plans with the recommendation that the screening should
exceed 2.5 feet in height.
MOVED
by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #110, Amendment #1 subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. Relocation from the applicant’s current site, less than a mile away, indicates there is
a local market for the goods and services being provided.
2. The automobile sales and repair uses are not inconsistent with the Mixed Use
designation on the City’s General Land Use Plan Map. These commercial uses
support the goal of locating redevelopment along major corridors and increasing the
job and tax base within the community.
3. Staff anticipates the new uses would have no impact on the surrounding property
values and are isolated from any residential neighborhoods.
4. The number of trips associated with the proposed uses would likely not exceed the
number of trips generated by the use previously at this location. Trips generated
from the proposed uses would not exceed the capacity of the roadways. All vehicle
deliveries and storage of inventory would be required to take place on-site and not
on the street.
5. The proposed uses may generate an increase in the number of employees and
customers at the location compared to the past uses, but are consistent with the
other properties surrounding the site and the Mixed Use district.
6. The proposed uses are not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise
levels. Automobile repair work would be conducted within an enclosed building and
would take place during normal business hours. No outside music, loudspeakers, or
public address system would be allowed.
7. The proposed uses are not anticipated to cause an increase in dust or odor. Minimal
vibrations may be associated with the auto repair use but should not impact any
adjacent uses.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 7
8. The proposed uses are not anticipated to attract pests.
9. The visual impacts of dealership inventory stored in the parking lot will be mitigated
through the addition of screening. An exterior dumpster would be screening with
material compatible with the building.
10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed uses. The
location is surrounded by automobile, warehouse, and commercial properties and
has adequate parking.
Conditions:
1. All vehicle deliveries and storage of inventory shall take place on-site and shall not
take place on the street.
2. No parking shall be allowed within any existing landscaped area.
3. The number of service bays on-site shall be limited to eight.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be screened from view and made of material compatible
with the building.
5. No outside music, loudspeakers, or public address system will be allowed.
6. Additional screening shall be installed consistent with the Development Standards
for parking screening listed in the Zoning Code for the I-394 Mixed Use District. If
vegetative screening is used, the applicant must submit a landscaping plan (number
of plantings, species of plantings, etc.) to be reviewed and approved by the City
Forester. The applicant shall explore, with the City Council and staff, ways in which
they can enhance the beauty of the site in exchange for a reduction in the required
height of the parking lot screening.
7. Snow storage shall be such that it maintains the minimum number of required
parking spaces.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that there is a Planning Workshop on April 16
regarding TOD Zoning. He stated that the Planning Commission annual report is
scheduled to be on the April 10 Council/Manager agenda.
Waldhauser reported on a Blue Line meeting recently held at Unity Church.
Black suggested that the City’s parking requirements be reviewed. Zimmerman agreed.
5. Other Business
Council Liaison Report
Schmidgall discussed the long term plans regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on
Highway 169 and Highway 55. Waldhauser asked if there will be better pedestrian
crossings. Schmidgall said he hopes so and added that BRT along Highway 55 will
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 9, 2018
Page 8
create opportunities. Segelbaum asked if BRT means adding an additional dedicated
lane. Schmidgall said on Highway 169 a lane would be added outside of the roadway,
but they've been shown a variety of plans.
Schmidgall stated that JFCS is having their ribbon cutting on May 8 and that there will
be a Bike/Pedestrian Task Force meeting on April 18.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm.
1
l
�
��`
�
,
G� � -
Ron lum, Secr tary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant