04-23-18 PC Minutes
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 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 23, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins,
Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason
Zimmerman.
1. Approval of Minutes
April 9, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED
by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
approve the April 9, 2018, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing – Major PUD Amendment – 5430 Glenwood Avenue –
Meadowbrook PUD #90, Amendment #4 – PU90-A4
Applicant: Hopkins Public Schools
Address: 5430 Glenwood Avenue
Purpose: To allow for a 15,000 square foot addition
Zimmerman referred to the Land Use Map and noted that the properties in the PUD are
currently guided for schools and religious facilities, public facilities, and semi-public
facilities. He noted that on the proposed new Land Use Map the properties will all be
guided for assembly use which is consistent with what is there today. He added that the
properties are zoned Institutional (I-1) which is reserved for churches and schools.
Zimmerman gave a history of the PUD and explained the applicant’s current proposal to
construct a nine-classroom addition at the north end of the building to accommodate the
overcrowding that exists today. He explained that as a part of this proposal one existing
classroom will be converted to restrooms and utility space so there would be a net of
eight classrooms added. In addition there will be an internal courtyard created, an
expanded cafeteria, and an improved loading dock area. He noted that the proposed
work would be done in two phases starting with phase one in 2018 and phase two in
2019. He explained that staff’s main concern is traffic primarily at drop off and pick up
times and the traffic queuing on Glenwood Avenue.
Zimmerman referred to the traffic study done to examine existing conditions and
forecast conditions under this proposed amendment. He explained that the existing
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 2
enrollment is 836 and the proposed enrollment would be 890. He stated that the
average number of observed vehicles dropping off in the morning was 377 and 261
during the afternoon pick-up. The number of vehicles queued on the street was 8 to 15
in the morning and 4 to 21 in the afternoon.
Segelbaum asked for clarification about the average carpool statistics and asked about
the timeframe of the drop-offs and if that includes staff arrivals. Zimmerman said the
study looked at when parents started arriving and when they stopped because of school
starting. The average over four days was 377. Zimmerman stated that 38 spaces is the
number of queuing spaces that the traffic engineer felt was the minimum number of
spaces necessary to keep the cars off the public streets and on the site. Zimmerman
showed an aerial photo of the site and explained the four different access points used
for buses, access to the Davis Community Center, and for cars dropping off and picking
up students.
Zimmerman stated that when the traffic engineer’s findings were presented to
Meadowbrook they came back with some proposals as to finding space for the
additional 38 queuing spaces. One idea is to widen the entrance off of Turners
Crossroad to create better flow and add approximately 5 additional queuing spaces.
Another idea is to remove an existing playground and landscaped area near the corner
of Glenwood and Turners Crossroad in order to create a larger one-way loop which
would increase the queuing capacity on site and a larger area for students to be
dropped off and picked up. Another idea is to add a loop on the east parking lot that
would allow 16 more spaces. He added that by doing some other adjustments in the
existing parking lots another 10 spaces for queuing could be added. He said that staff
reviewed the applicant’s proposals and has some slightly different opinions. He said
staff agrees with the proposal to widen the entrance on Turners Crossroad along with
the addition of a right line on Turners Crossroad to increase public safety. He stated that
staff doesn’t want to see the playground and landscaped corner area removed, but
would support a smaller extended loop area on the west side of the site. He added that
the County is interested in seeing a left turn lane added on Glenwood Avenue either by
restriping or doing some curb work/construction to obtain enough width to allow people
to bypass the queue on the right.
Zimmerman referred to the landscaping plan and explained that the applicant is
proposing to remove 15 trees along Turners Crossroad and approximately 14 trees
north of the east parking lot. He stated that a tree survey will be required to evaluate
significant trees on the site and that tree replacement will be required.
Zimmerman discussed the lighting on the site and stated that a lighting plan for the
proposed new fixtures on the north end of the building will be necessary. He noted that
there are also outstanding inflow and infiltration corrections that need to be made and
that staff is recommending that enrollment be capped at 890 students in hopes of
avoiding future crowding issues. Staff is also recommending that if the applicant wants
to expand in the future there will need to be a much more significant traffic study done.
He added that the final plat from the applicant’s third PUD amendment must be
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 3
recorded with Hennepin County prior to any permits being issued and that the applicant
should explore options to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the campus from the
east without crossing the ingress and egress driveways on Glenwood Avenue.
Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD
amendment based on the conditions listed in the staff report.
Baker asked for a comparison of the differences between what the applicant is
proposing and what the City is proposing. Zimmerman referred to a map of the property
and reviewed the three areas where the applicant is proposing changes on their site to
help with traffic and queuing and a map showing the changes the City would like to see
including a smaller loop on the west side of the building and the addition of a left turn
lane on Glenwood Avenue to help traffic flow better through the area.
Blum referred to the landscaping plan and asked if a tree survey has been done yet.
Zimmerman said no, a tree survey has not yet been done. Blum noted that the
landscaping plan showing the trees to be removed didn’t seem to encompass the
widening of the driveway on Turners Crossroad. Zimmerman explained that some of the
trees would need to be removed because of ADA entrance requirements and other tree
removal has to do with grading and utility work that will take place.
Johnson stated that the applicant is building nine new classrooms, but have said there
is a net of eight new classrooms and questioned why they aren’t just saying that they
are building nine. Zimmerman explained that they are proposing nine classrooms, but
one existing classroom is being taken away so there is a net of eight new classrooms
being constructed. He added that this doesn’t mean that there will be eight new classes
of 24 students each, the new classrooms will accommodate the existing students and
approximately 54 additional students.
Brookins asked for clarification regarding the one-way loop referred to in the staff
reports. Zimmerman explained that staff has suggested a one-way loop system on the
campus to allow cars to get off the public streets and to queue up on site instead.
However, there are space constraints on this property that would make that difficult.
Baker said he finds that idea compelling and is disappointed to hear that idea wasn’t
more seriously considered.
Segelbaum referred to the proposed extension of the existing loop on the west side of
the property and asked why the City is recommending that be made smaller instead of
the applicant’s larger loop proposal. Zimmerman said it is a safety issue and the loss of
pervious surface, landscaping, and playground area.
Baker asked if the proposed widening of Glenwood Avenue would take place within
existing right-of-way, or if additional property would have to be acquired. Zimmerman
said he doesn’t believe it would involve any taking of property from adjacent property
owners because there appears to be enough right-of-way available. Segelbaum asked
who would pay for the widening of Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said the district
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 4
would because the improvements would be necessitated by the proposed expansion
project.
Johnson asked if there is sufficient parking on the property. Zimmerman said there
haven’t been any complaints or concerns about parking compared to the queuing at
drop off and pick up times. Johnson asked if it will be difficult for cars to turn left out of
the parking lot on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said it could potentially be a problem.
Waldhauser asked about the service area for Meadowbrook and where their students
come from. Zimmerman suggested having the applicant address that.
Brookins referred to the impervious surface on the site and asked if staff is confident
that stormwater BMPs can be put in place with the addition. Zimmerman stated that
staff is not confident yet because it depends on what traffic mitigation plan is
implemented. He added that the applicant will be required to have a stormwater permit
as part of the process. Waldhauser asked if there is any stormwater treatment currently
in place. Zimmerman said he didn’t think so.
Segelbaum asked why the recommendation includes a cap on staff as well as students.
Zimmerman said he is willing to work with the applicant regarding that recommendation.
Blum referred to the proposed enrollment cap and asked if the authority to do that arises
from the fact that this is a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said yes, and explained that
capping the enrollment is a tangible way to address the capacity of the site.
Blum referred to the suggested changes on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the City
could potentially lose specific lanes for bikes or pedestrians in the future. Zimmerman
said he believes there will always be trails, it is just a matter of whether they will be on-
street or off-street trails.
Baker asked the applicant to address each of staff’s recommended conditions starting
with the proposed loop area on the west side of the property. Neil Tessier, SAF
Engineering, stated that the City asked Meadowbrook to get 38 vehicles off of the road
and that with the concept they are proposing it gets 46 vehicles off the road so they feel
they’ve met that condition. He added that it will be challenging to add a turn lane on
Turners Crossroad because of the grade and the expense and that the school district’s
position is that they would really prefer not to do any work on the roads. He explained
that the school doesn’t use the existing play area on the west side as much as they did
in the past so that is why they are proposing the larger loop concept, instead of the
smaller one recommended by the City. Segelbaum asked about the suggestion of a
double lane access in the loop area. Tessier stated that the loop could be made wider to
help address the issues with pick up and drop off.
Baker asked why the School District is against making changes on Turners Crossroad
and Glenwood Avenue. Tessier reiterated that there are grading issues on Turners
Crossroad and that the numbers in the traffic study use the worst case scenario. He
stated that 90% of the time there are no issues on the streets, especially on Turners
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 5
Crossroad so there really isn’t the need for an additional turn lane on Turners Crossroad
as recommended because the vehicles are being brought on site. He referred to
Glenwood Avenue and said the County and the City really need to look at the width of
that road because he doesn’t think there is enough space, and it would be a major
undertaking, to provide a safe turn lane with bike lanes, curbs, and sidewalks. He added
that all of the development going on in the City is contributing to the congestion on
Glenwood so they don’t feel the School District should bear all of the responsibility.
Baker stated that people wouldn’t be turning there, but for the school. Tessier stated
that a significant amount of cars use Glenwood as a by-pass to get to Highway 100.
Blum said he would like to see a bigger picture of the volume of traffic and the direction
it is coming from in order to see the pressure on these points. Tessier noted that the
traffic study said approximately 25-30% of the trips come in from Turners Crossroad
and that the rest come from Glenwood Avenue. Blum asked about the demographics of
the people coming to this school. Tessier said he didn’t know exactly, but he does know
there is a major amount of open enrollment, and people come from many different
places.
Zimmerman noted that the traffic engineer’s report doesn’t show where the trips are
coming from, but it does show that the trips entering the site are fairly evenly split
between the Turners Crossroad entrance and the Glenwood Avenue entrance. Greta
Evans-Becker, Principal of Meadowbrook School, said that the west side of the site is
the only place where students are dropped off, but the larger number of pick-ups occur
on the Glenwood Avenue side of the property so that is why the numbers look evenly
split.
Baker asked why the suggested loop around the east parking lot was dismissed as not
an option. Tessier said separating bus traffic and parent traffic is something almost
every school in the state does because there is significant liability and safety concerns
so that is something the School District really does not want to do.
Baker asked about the differences between the applicant and the City regarding
landscaping. Tessier said they are prepared to submit a tree survey and a new
landscaping plan.
Baker asked about the staff’s recommendations regarding the lighting plan. Tessier said
they will provide a photometric plan to make sure light doesn’t spill into the
neighborhood.
Baker asked about the staff’s recommendations regarding utilities. Tessier said they are
waiting for the infiltration report and discussed the sewer work done in the past. He
added that they will fix any issues that need repair.
Baker asked Tessier about stormwater BMPs. Tessier said they are proposing to run
the storm sewer pipe from the roof area into an existing catch basin that goes into a
stormscepter and Bassett Creek.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 6
Baker asked Tessier about the proposed enrollment requirement and the outstanding
plat. Tessier said they have no issue with capping the enrollment and that they are
working on getting the plat finished.
Baker referred to the bike flow issue and asked Tessier to respond to staff’s suggested
concept. Tessier explained that there could be a challenge with the staging of bikes on
the east part of the site when the entrance is completely around the building on the west
side. He stated there is also a hill, a lot of trees, a storm sewer, and a drainage swale to
be considered. He added that there are bike paths that cross driveways all over the City
and questioned what the City typically does in any other situation. He stated they are
comfortable adding signage, but to reroute the bike path all the way around the school
is a fairly large expense they would like to avoid. Segelbaum noted that the existing bike
racks are located where the loop is proposed to be expanded and questioned where
they would be relocated to. Tessier said the plans at this point are schematics and they
don’t have all the details yet, but they will put several bike racks in. Waldhauser asked if
there are crossing guards at the entrances. Tessier stated that there are people within
the site supervising drop offs and pick-ups. Evans-Becker stated that none of
Meadowbrook’s students are walkers so they don’t have crossing guards on the streets.
Baker asked Tessier if Meadowbrook has considered hiring a traffic control officer which
could solve many of the problems. Tessier stated that a traffic control officer wouldn’t be
effective on Glenwood Avenue where people turn into the school because it wouldn’t
help with the issue of people trying to go around that traffic.
Segelbaum stated that one of the City’s recommendations is to cap the number of staff
as well as the number students and asked if Meadowbrook has issues with that. Baker
clarified that the condition regarding staff doesn’t cap the number of staff, it requires that
changes to staffing levels or programming activities shall be discussed with the City
prior to implementation. Evans-Becker said that requirement seems complex when it
doesn’t impact the number of families that are coming or going. Waldhauser stated that
program changes do affect capacity. Evans-Becker said things should stay in balance
with a cap on student enrollment.
Waldhauser asked about the service area for Meadowbrook and how many of the
students are from that area, and outside of that area. Evans-Becker said the attendance
area is mainly south of Highway 55, west of Winnetka down to I-394 and to Theodore
Wirth on the east. She stated that half of the students come from the attendance area
and the other half are open enrolled students, many of which come from the rest of
Golden Valley among many other cities.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Paula Pentel, 941 Angelo Drive, said she has been involved with Meadowbrook since
2000 and she is concerned that the maps aren’t showing where the new addition is
going to be constructed. She said she is glad a tree survey is going to be required and
that she is concerned about the amount of impervious surface on the site and the size
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 7
of the playground. She referred to the suggested parking lot addition on the east side
and said she is concerned about the specimen trees in that area and the lack of a
buffer. She questioned how the student population will actually be capped and said that
the fact that the district decided that they want to put five levels of classes starting with
kindergarten doesn’t make an emergency for the City to allow a development that may
be too large for the site. She questioned if the Boy Scout property to the east may be
available to Meadowbrook in order to alleviate some of the issues and said she is not
sure every option has been considered.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said she feels like Meadowbrook has outgrown their space. She said she
understands the interest in having Meadowbrook in the community but it was built as a
small neighborhood school that is now trying to serve students from all over the place.
She questioned how much the City should do to help this one school serve as many
students as possible when there are a lot of other options. She said she is not
interested in seeing any expansion of Meadowbrook. Blum agreed and said he would
recommend that the City pause on this decision. Baker agreed with Blum and stated
that this proposal could be tabled in order to try and resolve some of the issues. Black
stated that the student expansion has already happened so the question is whether they
want to keep them in this small space.
Johnson stated that the school has an issue with traffic but they are trying to solve it by
getting more of the traffic off the streets and onto their site. Segelbaum agreed and said
he supports Meadowbrook and thinks they are trying to accommodate the traffic. He
said he is not sure it is completely plausible to add a turn lane on Glenwood Avenue so
he doesn’t want to make it a mandatory requirement at this point.
Baker asked if the queuing on Glenwood is a result of people waiting to turn into the
parking lot or if it queues all the way to the school’s entrance. Zimmerman said it is a bit
of both. Blum questioned why so many people are choosing to use the Glenwood
entrance. Zimmerman stated there are more parking spaces and more queuing space
on the east side. Baker said he is impressed with the compromises that have been
reached.
Brookins said he is not in support of the proposal. He said he thinks there are other
opportunities that haven’t been considered in terms of the long term vision and that he
would be in favor of tabling the proposal. Angell agreed and added that the larger loop
proposal isn’t ideal. He said he’d like to see more detail about potential plantings as
well. Baker said the proposal seems hasty and it feels like more thought could have
been put into it. Black said the main issue was traffic and that an entire traffic study was
done. He said there are other issues that are important, but the applicant has addressed
the main concerns the City has. Segelbaum said he thinks tabling the proposal would
be the worst option for the district. He said if there is more information required it can be
added before it goes to the City Council, but the Planning Commission’s purview is to
decide whether or not the proposal meets the standards, not if it they are moving too
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 8
quickly. Blum said he thinks the hesitation flows into the criteria they are supposed to
consider and are within their purview. Segelbaum said he feels it would be a disservice
to the school to not give them a vote.
Segelbaum referred to the second recommended condition of approval and questioned
if options B and/or D1 from the traffic engineer’s memo should be excluded. He also
questioned if a turn lane of Turners Crossroad would be necessary if the larger loop
option were constructed on the west side of the property. He said he would like there to
be further study before the proposal goes to the City Council regarding the traffic issues
on Glenwood Avenue and whether re-striping or adding a through lane would be best.
Baker reiterated that he thinks the proposal should be tabled.
Johnson stated he would like the staff report to state that they are creating nine
additional classrooms rather than a net of eight new classrooms.
Segelbaum referred to the seventh condition of approval and said he would like to strike
the language after the words “enrollment shall be capped at 890 students.” Zimmerman
stated that the City would still like to get annual information on enrollment from
Meadowbrook. Brookins said he would like the enrollment capped at even fewer than
890 students.
Johnson referred to the eighth condition of approval and said he thinks options for a
bicycle/pedestrian plan should be required the same as any other bike trail. Baker
recommended the language state that an east/west bike trail must be maintained and
options for a trail connection the parking lot should be explored.
Brookins asked if there should be timing requirements added to the conditions regarding
traffic improvements. Zimmerman said it depends on the County requirements. Brookins
asked if the internal site modifications could be addressed sooner. Baker suggested
adding language that requires options B and C be done during the first phase.
Johnson suggested that condition number three regarding tree mitigation be more
specific and include a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant trees.
MOVED
by Segelbaum seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Major PUD Amendment plan for Meadowbrook PUD No. 90,
Amendment #4 subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval, the proposed
expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of
the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow
more smoothly in and around the site, relieving existing congestion.
2. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved
landscaping will be required and will help mitigate their removal.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 9
3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the construction
of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on-site.
4. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better manage
the number of students currently on-site and would allow for a small number of new
students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan which advocates a “complete community” and prioritizes the
preservation of elementary schools. However, without close oversight of future
enrollment and programming, problems around overcrowding could arise once more.
5. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed
expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and
welfare of those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area.
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 19, 2018, shall become a part of this approval.
2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the
Engineering memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School in
2018 and 2019. These include physical improvements (A, C and E in the traffic
engineer’s memo and the school’s original option B) as well as operational
optimization. B and C shall be constructed in 2018.
3. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory,
includes a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant trees
which shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit.
4. A photometric plan with light levels identified for all new fixtures shall be submitted
for review and approval.
5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City’s
I/I code. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after
repair or construction, and must obtain compliance with the City’s I/I Ordinance, prior
to occupancy of the building or release of funds.
6. No permits shall be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment #3
has been recorded with Hennepin County.
7. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students. Information on enrollment shall be
provided to the City annually.
8. An east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection east of
the parking lot that avoids vehicular conflicts shall be explored with City staff.
--Short Recess--
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman stated that officer elections will occur at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2018
Page 10
The Commission acknowledged that it was Commissioner Waldhauser's last meeting.
4. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.
�
W �
Ron lum, Secretary Lis ittman, Administrative Assistant