Loading...
pc-agenda-sep-14-20REGULAR MEETING AGENDA  This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the  City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable  channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting  code 133 637 0497. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by  calling 763‐230‐8060 and following the automated prompts.   Additional information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For  technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.  If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement  consideration.   1.Call to Order 2.Approval of Agenda 3.Approval of Minutes August 24, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4.Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – Rezoning of Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 4) Applicant: City of Golden Valley  5.Informal Public Hearing – Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 145 Applicant: Good Shepherd Church and School  Location: 145 Jersey Ave S  Purpose: To allow for the addition of a second preschool classroom  –End of Televised Portion of Meeting – To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 133 637 0497  6.Council Liaison Report 7.Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings 8.Other Business 9.Adjournment September 14, 2020 – 7 pm         REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by  the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,  2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted  electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were  able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on  CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.   The public was able to participate in this meeting during public comment sections, by dialing the  public call‐in line.    1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.    Roll Call  Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Ryan  Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum   Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl  Staff present:    Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner   Council Liaison absent: Gillian Rosenquist    2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the  agenda of August 24, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from August 10, 2020.   MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the  August 10, 2020 meeting minutes.   Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Section 113‐90: Medium Density Residential  (R‐3) Zoning District  Applicant: City of Golden Valley    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reiterated this item is required follow up from adoption of  the 2040 Comp Plan.    August 24, 2020 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       2  Zimmerman explained that R‐3 is considered medium density and showed this diagram to illustrate  the differences between the designation in the 2040 Comp Plan and the existing R‐3 zoning.                  The main reason this item was tabled was to address density bonuses. The old bonuses were based  on another era and on a developing community. It was asked if new bonuses could be reflective of a  redeveloping community and of current City priorities. There was a desire to reduce “by‐right”  densities and provide bonuses to get up to the maximums allowed.     Staff reviewed these bonuses, using the Comp Plan for guidance this is staff’s proposal:   Medium Density (R‐3)   Maximum of 12 units per acre or 17 units per acre with a CUP (up to 3 additional units per acre  available through density bonuses).   For senior/disability housing, maximum of 20 units per acre or 25 with a CUP (up to 5 additional  units per acre available through density bonuses).     Zimmerman added that approving the proposed zoning district revision would bring all current R‐3  properties into conformance.    Staff reviewed possible topics for density bonuses: Affordable Housing, Energy Efficiency, Renewable  Energy, and Stormwater Management.   The two main criteria listed for creating density bonuses are:  1. Is the trigger concrete and non‐subjective? Can it be easily quantified and monitored?  2. Does it involve a substantial investment that would be difficult or unwieldy to reverse once  the bonus has been awarded?    Recommended Density Bonus Topics   Green building certification   Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure   Incorporation of microgrid for back‐up power   Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations   Construction of above‐ground stormwater facilities    Recommended Criteria  Density bonuses would be available for an additional 2 units per acre for:   Green building certification at the Platinum level  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       3   Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure   Incorporation of microgrid for back‐up power     Density bonuses would be available for an addition 1 unit per acre for:   Green building certification at the Gold level   Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations   Construction of above‐ground green stormwater facilities    Recommendation  Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density  ranges and update the density bonus provisions, as detailed in the attached document  (Underline/Overstruck language for Sec. 113‐90 of the City Code).    Staff and Commissioners reviewed specific text language and asked questions.      Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:22pm.     There were no callers at the time of opening the hearing. Commissioners continued to ask staff  questions regarding language in the ordinance versus in the policy. The conversation continued into a  potential point system and levels of bonuses.     Dianne Hofstead  2450 Valders Ave N  Caller stated that she submitted a letter to Commissioners and she opposes the R‐3 re‐zoning.  Medium density is not appropriate for the area as the increase in building heights, traffic, and noise  would be disastrous for the area.      Hannah Fotsch  8445 Patsy Lane   Caller asked about the industrial zoning changes and if there will be changes to the nature preserve.     Chair Blum told the caller she didn’t need to call back but that her comment would be addressed  during the next agenda item.     Zimmerman chimed in to reiterate there are two public hearings during this meeting and if folks are  calling about re‐zonings in the NW portion of Golden Valley, to please wait for the next agenda item.     The conversation moved on to specifics about density bonuses and the permanence of some options  that will lead to bonuses. The conversation circled back to the density bonus categories being in the  ordinance and then adding details in a policy document at a later date.     Matthew Faber  2325 Winnetka Ave N  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       4  Caller’s main concerns are that the Commission states they’re for housing for all people but they’re  mostly concerned for energy efficiency. Rain gardens etc for water displacement is important but the  caller is concerned that there isn’t actual affordable housing being created. The caller suggested R‐1  housing on concrete slabs with unattached garages that the average person can afford. The caller  asked why his feed while watching his phone went down and asked if the meeting was actually pre‐ recorded and not live. Chair Blum responded and told the caller that he was participating in a live  meeting and that staff responds to questions at the end of the hearing. The caller asked the  Commission how much the average electric car costs and how many people own them that are  looking for housing. The Chair reiterated the public hearing process and the caller continued to ask  for immediate responses to his questions.     Zimmerman added that affordable housing is one of the goals emphasized through density bonuses.  This is incentivized through the mixed‐income housing policy. This particular hearing is about density  bonuses in an R‐3 zoning district, that does not include single family homes. This conversation should  continue when the R‐1 district conversation occurs.    The Commissioners continued the discussion around density bonuses and its relation to affordability.  The conversation evolved into housing types as well as that building rules were not followed at some  point and modifying R‐3 zoning text brings the areas into conformance without increasing to an R‐4.     Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:15pm.     MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve  the density bonus list, subject to Planning staff and City Attorney review of the language.   Staff took a roll call vote.  Aye: Baker, Blum, Brookins, Sadeghi, Segelbaum  Nay: Johnson  Motion passes, 5:1    5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – Rezoning of Properties to Achieve  Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 3)  Applicant: City of Golden Valley    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by addressing the original notification letters that  went out to resident. These letters included rezoning of three properties owned by General Mills  owns. Once the letters went out, GM requested the properties not be included in this hearing as they  would like more clarification with the City. As such, those items will not be discussed tonight.   Zimmerman revisited the 2040 Comp Plan schedule that started in November 2018. The Future Land  Use map was displayed for reference with the three quadrants of neighborhoods, tonight’s hearing is  regarding the third quadrant. Zimmerman continued and broke down the ten groups within this  quadrant that are proposed for rezoning. They each had an associated map and explanation from  staff.    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       5  Wrapping up the presentation, Zimmerman reminded everyone that state statute requires all zoning  designations to be consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of  adoption. He added that businesses would be allowed to continue with current uses and site layouts  under a legally non‐conforming status; PUD regulations take precedence.  Should the City choose not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need  to be amended with the Met Council.    Recommendation  Following the provisions of State statute (sec. 473.858, subd. 1) and the requirements of the  Metropolitan Council with respect to comprehensive planning, staff recommends the 37 identified  properties be rezoned as indicated.    Commissioner Orloff asked if rowhouses are included in the R‐2 discussion or if that’s a future  decision. Zimmerman clarified that the decision to include rowhouses has not been made.  Zimmerman added that if the Commission wants to resolve the R‐2 designations prior to approving  the groups that include R‐2, he suggests those groups be tabled. Brookins mentioned tabling group 6  as well since a developer is looking at a property in that group. The goal would be to rezone it so  what is developed there is something the City is looking for. The conversation evolved in to a brief  conversation about rezonings around the Country Club.     Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:40pm.    Van Tran  2445 Winnetka Ave N  My property is zoned, office, is that R‐2? I’m not sure the difference from R‐2 and R‐3. My partner  owns the property next door and we’d like to redevelop the two pieces of property together. The size  is limited and if the zoning isn’t right, it won’t attract a developer/investor.     Lawrence Johanns  2415 Winnetka Ave N  We would like to see these lots zoned R‐3 and there seems to be interest in 55+ housing. Developers  contacted me and said they would consider our lots if they were rezoned appropriately. I think this  would help the City and the residents. My business partner and I support rezoning to R‐3.     Jake Langer  2480 Valders Ave N  I oppose the rezoning. I bought my home understanding that I was moving in to an R‐1 neighborhood  and I would not have bought it if I thought the property next to me was zoned differently. Having a 4‐ 5 story building in my yard would be an albatross. If this happens, the residents should receive  compensation from the City that covers the value difference before and after this rezoning.     Matthew Faber  2325 Winnetka Ave N  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       6  I am offended how this meeting is occurring, residents didn’t have ample time to prepare for this  meeting. I don’t have a problem with the City growing but these rezonings are changing the entire  neighborhood. What is the target growth for Golden Valley by 2040? Going to an R‐2 is more  acceptable. How can you talk about displacement of water and talk about adding underground  parking? I feel like you need to be more honest with your constituents and I’m starting a petition  tomorrow.     C Griffith  7979 Jonellen Lane  My understanding is that the two proposed lots were originally residential and changed to office  zoning at the request of the owners‐despite objection from the neighbors. My understanding is that  the owners are asking for R‐3 in order to recoup property value. However, this would reduce the  value of neighbor properties and would potentially be very high. This would also increase traffic on  an already congested area. I’m confused about a letter going around the neighborhood that says the  whole area will be rezoned for a multi‐unit development. Is that part of the plan?    Patty Burrets  6414 Golden Valley Road  Can you explain, exactly, what Mixed use residential means? A strip mall? Bakery? Drugstore? I’d like  to know why the City would want that to happen on Golden Valley Road. We have this parcel that  was industrial and went to office. Why is this industrial to offices? Now across the street from my  house is Mixed‐Use. I want to know the difference and what that means. I appreciate Jason talking to  me for a long time but it doesn’t make things so clear for others. This is a neighborhood. We need to  think about the whole city.     Dianne Hofstead  2450 Valders Ave N  I stand by my letter I sent earlier and my previous statement. R‐3 is not acceptable for the  Winnetka/Valders area because of the height, additional noise, resulting traffic and those various  reasons. R‐3 is not a good fit.     Chair Blum asked staff to give a quick summary on the difference between R‐2 and R‐3.   Zimmerman responded:   R‐3   Medium Density Residential   Multi‐Family/Multi‐Family Senior Housing   4 stories by right/5 for senior building   Density could reach up to 30 units/acre  R‐2   Single Family homes and Duplexes   Previous meetings there has been a discussion to add rowhouses (side by side units) and  not limiting it to duplex  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       7   Height limited to 2‐2.5 stories.     Chair asked staff to clarify when communications started regarding this item.  Zimmerman stated that discussions started a few years prior, continued to Land Use discussion but it  was City wide, not neighborhood focused. Now individual properties are being proposed for  rezoning, owners and neighbors with 500 feet are receiving public information from both the  Planning Commission and City Council. City Code requires mailings to go out 10 days in advance of  the meeting. We’ve all heard about delays with postal service so we will get City Council notice  letters out sooner to compensate. Staff added that a final decision isn’t occurring at this meeting but  may rather be recommended to City Council and they make the final decision.     Zimmerman addressed the inquiries about R‐2 zoning south on Winnetka, but that conversation isn’t  happening tonight. A discussion about what R‐2 includes will happen first.   Chair added that the conversations regarding rezoning these areas have occurred for a long time and  there’s a robust record in both video and minutes to see that. The Chair asked staff to address the  definition of Mixed‐Use Residential. Zimmerman reminded everyone that these definitions are in the  City Code, Section 113‐97 defines Mixed‐Use. This district is a flexible district: allows residential,  office, commercial and institutional (schools/places of worship). Mixed‐Use Residential is similar  albeit on a smaller scale: multi‐family dwellings of 3 or more, single family dwellings, medical clinics,  restaurants, general retail, schools, religious institutions. It would prohibit: stand‐alone parking lots,  auto repair, gas stations. Staff continued explaining the area and history of thinking for the proposed  rezoning. The Chair asked staff what the target growth is for the City. Zimmerman responded that  there are three projections for growth at 2020, 2030, and 2040. The current population of Golden  Valley is just under 25,000. The projection for 2030 is to increase by around 800 more and by 2040  the target population is 26,700.     Kathy Longar  2105 Aquilla Ave  Asked if there could be a traffic study on the increase in accidents on Winnetka now that the lanes  have decreased. Is the plan for access to the apartments, that folks would drive in and out from  Valders or Winnetka?     The Chair asked staff what the extent is of traffic studies in rezonings. Zimmerman responded that a  traffic study specialist is part of the planning process and plugs in projections based on the target  population growth.  Results from the Winnetka traffic study when it was reduced to a 3‐lane road are  not in, when they are, they will be shared. When a proposal for development is received by the City,  then a traffic study will take place.     Chair asked staff to clarify when communications started regarding this item.  Zimmerman stated that discussions started a few years prior, continued to Land Use discussion but it  was City wide, not neighborhood focused. Now individual properties are being proposed for  rezoning, owners and neighbors with 500 feet are receiving public information from both the  Planning Commission and City Council. City Code requires mailings to go out 10 days in advance of  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       8  the meeting. We’ve all heard about delays with postal service so we will get City Council notice  letters out sooner to compensate. Staff added that a final decision isn’t occurring at this meeting but  may rather be recommended to City Council and they make the final decision.     Zimmerman addressed the inquiries about R‐2 zoning south on Winnetka, but that conversation isn’t  happening tonight. A discussion about what R‐2 includes will happen first.   Chair added that the conversations regarding rezoning these areas have occurred for a long time and  there’s a robust record in both video and minutes to see that. The Chair asked staff to address the  definition of Mixed‐Use Residential. Zimmerman reminded everyone that these definitions are in the  City Code, Section 113‐97 defines Mixed‐Use. This district is a flexible district: allows residential,  office, commercial and institutional (schools/places of worship). Mixed‐Use Residential is similar  albeit on a smaller scale: multi‐family dwellings of 3 or more, single family dwellings, medical clinics,  restaurants, general retail, schools, religious institutions. It would prohibit: stand‐alone parking lots,  auto repair, gas stations. Staff continued explaining the area and history of thinking for the proposed  rezoning. The Chair asked staff what the target growth is for the City. Zimmerman responded that  there are three projections for growth at 2020, 2030, and 2040. The current population of Golden  Valley is just under 25,000. The projection for 2030 is to increase by around 800 more and by 2040  the target population is 26,700.     Kathy Longar  2105 Aquilla Ave  Asked if there could be a traffic study on the increase in accidents on Winnetka now that the lanes  have decreased. Is the plan for access to the apartments, that folks would drive in and out from  Valders or Winnetka?     The Chair asked staff what the extent is of traffic studies in rezonings. Zimmerman responded that a  traffic study specialist is part of the planning process and plugs in projections based on the target  population growth.  Results from the Winnetka traffic study when it was reduced to a 3‐lane road are  not in, when they are, they will be shared. When a proposal for development is received by the City,  then a traffic study will take place. The Chair opened the discussion to review the other groups at  length. He continued by asking staff about what the height difference is between the subject  properties in group 2 related to the R‐1 properties. Zimmerman responded this was reviewed in  2016 and the measurements show there is a 20‐foot grade difference. A 20‐foot building will reach  about the first level of the westerly abutting R‐1 properties.   Commissioner Brookins stated support for tabling group 2 until a discussion about expanding the R‐2  designation can occur.  Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sadeghi echoed this support.  Commissioner Brookins stated he’d like more conversation on group 6. Commissioner Segelbaum  stated he’d like to change the zoning and isn’t in favor of it being Industrial, as it currently stands.  Johnson stated support for voting on group 6 tonight.     Katherine Schlumpberger  2005 Gettysburg Ave N  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 24, 2020 – 7 pm       9  Regarding 9145 Earl street, the street is short, about 4 blocks. I’m curious what might happen at  about this address in the future.     Zimmerman answered the address is for staff as the parcel has no street address. It is on the north  portion of the General Mills Nature Site, it’s wooded and is part of the tabled conversation regarding  the GM properties. Residents will receive another letter before that comes to Planning Commission  again.     Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 9:31pm.    MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins seconded by Commissioner Baker to approve groups  1, 3‐10 in order to achieve conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive plan, and to table group 2 for  further discussion.   Staff took a role call vote and the motion passed unanimously.       Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:35pm      Televised portion of the meeting concluded at ____ pm    6. Council Liaison Report   Council Member Rosenquist was absent so no liaison report was given.    7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings  Zimmerman confirmed that Commissioners Pockl and Segelbaum would attend the Board meeting  this month.    8. Other Business  Commissioner Johnson offered to be the Planning Commission representative to the Facilities Analysis  Task Force.    9. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, and  approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:43 pm.                                                                                                              ________________________________                                                                                                  Adam Brookins, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant    1      Date:  September 14, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the  2040 Comprehensive Plan      Summary  Staff is requesting that 16 properties be considered for rezoning in order to come into  conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.    Background  State statute requires that all zoning designations be updated to be consistent with the land uses  identified in the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adoption. A number or properties  have already been rezoned, or are awaiting a City Council vote at the September 15 meeting. The  two areas currently being discussed were initially tabled by the Planning Commission and are  now being revisited.    Below is a summary of the timeline of the approval and adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive  Plan and the subsequent zoning changes:    Meeting Date Action  November 13, 2018 Planning Commission reviewed the final draft of the City’s proposed  2040 Comprehensive Plan and unanimously recommended it be  approved  December 4, 2018 City Council held a public hearing and voted to approve the plan  January 2, 2019 City Council directed staff to submit the plan to the Metropolitan  Council for final review  January 22, 2020 Metropolitan Council approved Golden Valley’s plan  February 4, 2020 City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and approved the  rezoning of the I‐394 Mixed Use properties  2    August 4, 2020 City Council approved the rezoning of properties south of Olson  Memorial Highway  September 1, 2020 City Council to approved the rezoning of properties north of Olson  Memorial Highway and east of Douglas Drive  September 15, 2020 City Council to consider the rezoning of properties north of Olson  Memorial Highway and west of Douglas Drive    Analysis  The 16 properties under consideration represent two different areas within the city. They both  demonstrate a fulfillment of previous land use changes by the City that were not followed by  zoning changes. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan put forward these land use designations again as  part of the Future Land Use Map.    No development proposals are pending with the City at either of these locations:     Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning  Group 1  This group of residential properties in the southeast corner of Winnetka Ave and Hwy 55 was  guided for higher density use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2010), but ultimately  was not rezoned. As part of the land use analysis leading up to the adoption of the 2040 Comp  Plan, the Planning Commission felt strongly that guiding these properties for medium density  use would provide opportunities for the development of housing that would complement the  efforts to strengthen the city’s downtown.  7831 Olson Memorial Highway R‐1 R‐3  440 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  424 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  400 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  7840 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7830 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7732 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7724 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7710 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  411 Rhode Island Ave N R‐1 R‐3  3        At its regular meeting on July 13, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed rezoning of  this area and eventually tabled the item to allow for additional analysis, including the pending  changes associated with a revised R‐3 zoning district.    This corner (bounded by Highway 55, Winnetka Ave, and Harold Ave) was the subject of a  rezoning proposal in 2011 from R‐1 to R‐3. This would have aligned the zoning map with the land  use designation included in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. At a Planning Commission  meeting in August of 2008, residents expressed concerns regarding building height, traffic  congestion at the Winnetka/Hwy 55 intersection, cut through and speeding traffic on Harold Ave,  and pedestrian safety (meeting minutes attached).    In anticipation of the rezoning, SEH conducted a traffic study based on the proposed land uses. It  found that a senior development, as opposed to a typical multifamily project, would generate  fewer trips in the AM and PM peak hours, even with a greater number of units. Potential  improvements to Winnetka Ave south of Hwy 55 (additional turn lanes to clear the intersection  more quickly) were recommended as a way to mitigate congestion. These changes were  implemented in 2015, even without any new development occurring in the area.    At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recorded a split vote (3‐3)  regarding the rezoning. The City Council, however, denied the rezoning with the findings that  traffic would not be supported by local streets and that the potential development would not be  4    in keeping with the character of the community. Subsequently, the land use map in the 2030  Comprehensive Plan was amended and the area once more guided for Low Density Residential  development.    In July of 2018, the Planning Commission examined the area while preparing the draft Future  Land Use map for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At that time, staff recommended guiding the  properties for Medium Density Residential, but the Commissioners debated guiding it for an even  greater intensity as High Density Residential due to the location adjacent to the downtown and  the likely future development of mass transit on Hwy 55 (meeting minutes attached).    Staff continues to recommend that the properties be rezoned to R‐3 in order to conform to the  guided land use approved by the City and the Met Council. The proximity to the downtown and  Brookview would encourage greater bicycle and pedestrian activity, especially if a new bridge  over Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave were to be constructed. Pending changes to the R‐3 zoning  district would encourage sustainable amenities such as energy efficient buildings, renewable  energy sources, support for electric vehicles, and innovative above‐ground stormwater  management facilities.    Any potential redevelopment of this area would likely result in the removal of direct access to  Winnetka Ave and the use of a shared access point onto Harold Ave to the south. An additional  improvement that would likely be required should redevelopment occur would be the  construction of a right turn lane on westbound Harold Ave (potentially paired with a stoplight) in  order to better facilitate the movement of vehicles onto Winnetka Ave and then to Hwy 55.     5    Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning  Group 2  The northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road has been guided for High  Density Residential Use since the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan in 2000. Rezoning  these properties for more intense residential use would encourage new development along a  recently reconstructed corridor. Existing uses include a vacant property, a single‐family  property, two duplexes, and a medium density apartment.  1300 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1200 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1170 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1100 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  6212 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4  6200 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4    6      At its regular meeting on August 10, the Planning Commission asked staff to conduct additional  research on the history of these properties and pervious considerations of zoning changes.    The 2020 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2000) designated the northeast quadrant of Douglas  Drive and Golden Valley Road as High Density Residential. In 2008, the same area was targeted  for a large senior development called Applewood Pointe. As a part of the Planned Unit  Development (PUD), these parcels were petitioned for rezoning from R‐1 and R‐2 to R‐4 (High  Density Residential). This rezoning would have matched the guided land use and brought the two  maps into conformance.    The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD and the rezoning to R‐4, but the  City Council voted to deny the Preliminary PUD Plan and the project was withdrawn. Accordingly,  the rezoning did not move forward. Minutes from the Planning Commission in 2008 where the  rezoning was discussed are attached. Residents expressed concern regarding building height,  impacts to traffic, and the loss of trees.    Three years later, in 2011, staff brought forward a new proposal to rezone the same properties to  R‐3. Although this was an upzoning, it did not fully comply with the guided land use of the  Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council  rezoned those properties shortly afterwards. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting  from 2011 are also attached; only one resident spoke at the public hearing.    In 2020, the preceding actions have left a Future Land Use map that continues to guide this  corner for High Density Residential use but with a zoning designation of Medium Density  Residential (R‐3). A change of one of the two maps is necessary to finally bring the two into  alignment.    At a Planning Commission meeting in 2018, where a draft Future Land Use map was being  discussed in advance of submission to the Metropolitan Council, Commissioners examined this  area and agreed to leave it guided for High Density Residential use (meeting minutes attached).  This guidance was then approved by the Met Council and adopted by the City Council along with  the rest of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.    Commissioners have since asked for clarification around potential traffic generated by a multi‐ family building. A traffic study conducted as part of the review of the Applewood Pointe proposal  in 2008 found no concerns regarding the number of trips that would be generated by the use –  an increase from 178 daily trips to 524 daily trips. Due to the residential nature, these trips would  have been spread throughout the day instead of concentrated in an AM or PM peak period. It  was determined there was sufficient capacity on Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive to  accommodate the additional trips.    Since that time, Douglas Drive has been reconstructed and a roundabout has been added to the  intersection with Golden Valley Road. The City Engineer has confirmed that the traffic flow  7    associated with a roundabout should move more smoothly and efficiently, with fewer  opportunities for serious crashes, as compared to the signalized intersection that was there  previously. In addition, any proposal for future development in the NE quadrant would be subject  to an updated traffic study to examine trip counts and access to either of the adjacent rights‐of‐ way. When Hennepin County designed the new Douglas Drive, they planned for a full  redevelopment scenario with the land uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan, so accounted for  the possibility of High Density Residential development at this location.    Staff continues to recommend that the properties be rezoned to R‐4 in order to conform to the  guided land use approved by the City and the Met Council.    Zoning Requirements  The key aspects of the two zoning designations being considered are listed below:  Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District (as proposed)  Permitted Uses  Duplexes   Townhouses   Multifamily buildings   Senior and physical disability housing  Conditional Uses  Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with  direct access to the street  Density Range  12 units per acre or 17 units per acre with a CUP (up to three additional  units per acre available through density bonuses)   Senior/physical disability housing – 20 units per acre or 25 units per acre  with a CUP (up to five additional units per acre available through density  bonuses)  Height  Four stories or 48 feet   Five stories or 60 feet for senior/physical disability housing with a CUP  High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning District  Permitted Uses  Multifamily buildings   Senior and physical disability housing  Conditional Uses  Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with  direct access to the street  Density Range  50 units per acre or 70 units per acre for senior/physical disability  housing   100 units per acre with a CUP  Height  Five stories or 60 feet   In excess of five stories or 60 feet with a CUP    8    Should the City chose not to rezone any of these properties, an amendment to the Future Land  Use Map would then be required with the Met Council – modifying the recently‐adopted 2040  Comprehensive Plan – in order to maintain consistency between guided land use and zoning.    Recommended Action  Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the 10 properties in  Group 1 from Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) to Medium Density Residential (R‐3).    Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the six properties in  Group 2 from Medium Density Residential (R‐3) to High Density Residential (R‐4).    Attachments  List of Affected Properties (1 page)  Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (4 pages)  Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 2018 (3 pages)  Planning Commission minutes of August 22, 2011 – Harold and Winnetka (9 pages)  Email from Resident dated July 19, 2020 (2 pages)  Planning Commission minutes of August 11, 2008 – Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road (8  pages)  Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 2011 – Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road (3  pages)  Email from Resident dated September 9, 2020 (1 page)    List of Affected Properties  Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning  7831 Olson Memorial Highway R‐1 R‐3  440 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  424 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  400 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3  7840 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7830 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7732 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7724 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  7710 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3  411 Rhode Island Ave N R‐1 R‐3  1300 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1200 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1170 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  1100 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4  6212 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4  6200 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4    Group 1 Future Land Use        Current Zoning          Group 2 Future Land Use        Current Zoning        Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2018 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 23, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins, and Pockl. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Amy Morgan, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Angell, Johnson, and Segelbaum were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes July 9, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Black noted that the date was missing from the first paragraph. MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 9, 2018, minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Discussion — Future Land Use Map Zimmerman stated that the City Manager would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed Future Land Use Map again to make sure they are comfortable with it going forward. He referred to the Map and said there are five areas that he would like the Commission to focus on. The first area Zimmerman discussed is the MnDOT and State Highway Patrol site at Duluth Street and Highway 100. He stated that the proposed Future Land Use Map has this property guided for mixed use. He explained that the property owners are preparing a master plan to improve the site and have said they are not intending on leaving so staff is proposing to re-guide the property to match the current use instead of guiding it Mixed Use. Baker questioned the access to the green area on the southwest corner of the site. Zimmerman stated that there is an office building located on that corner, but that there is an existing trail and public access to the green space. Blum stated that he has been in this facility and that it is used mostly for storage for vehicles. He said he agrees that there is a lot of potential for this site and is happy they are preparing a master plan to improve it. Brookins asked what uses could occur at this site based on the current zoning. Zimmerman stated that it would probably be zoned for a civic use and that a PUD could be needed as a part of their master plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2018 Page 2 Baker asked if a PUD would constrain them from selling off part of the property. Zimmerman said no, but there would need to be a PUD amendment done if that happened. The next area Zimmerman discussed is the corner of Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive. He stated that there is still an applicant considering a senior living facility for these properties and added that the applicant's proposal will be amended to include fewer units and less height/massing. Black asked if the recommendation is to guide these properties Low Density Residential. Zimmerman said yes, staff is recommending that the properties remain Low Density. The next area Zimmerman discussed is the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive. He stated that staff is not suggesting a change for this corner and that the vision for the area is the same, he is just looking for confirmation that it should remain guided for high density residential and if that is the right use of this corner. Baker asked if anyone has expressed concerns about this corner being designated for high density residential. Zimmerman stated that during the last Comp Plan update is was guided and rezoned to High Density Residential and some residents were opposed to that so the properties were rezoned to Medium Density. Blum asked about the properties to the north of these. Zimmerman stated that the apartments and condos are staying. Baker asked if High Density Residential fits with the Douglas Drive Study. Zimmerman said yes, it is consistent with the Douglas Drive Study to guide these properties High Density Residential. Baker asked if public access along the creek is something that could be included with these properties. Zimmerman said yes because any development done here would probably require a PUD so there could be opportunities to include access along the creek. Brookins said he is concerned that the parcels might not get developed if they are guided High Density Residential. Zimmerman noted the Medium Density might not work, but higher density encourages development in some ways. The next area Zimmerman discussed is the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55. He stated that the area is currently guided Low Density Residential and that the proposed Future Land Use Map guides it Medium Density Residential. He stated that there is the challenge of many separate property owners and there is concern about traffic among other things. He added that Medium Density would allow for a senior living facility and that a higher density use might be too much for some neighbors, but leaving it R-1, Low Density would be a disservice. Baker asked how to go about building consensus about something being developed here. Zimmerman stated that a developer would build the narrative because the City isn't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2018 Page 3 proposing a project, but rather saying what the appropriate land use would be and helping address concerns. Blum asked if the HRA could engage in buying the parcels to make a larger development and market it that way. Zimmerman noted that the City owns one of the lots, but the Golden Valley HRA does not have a levy like some other cities do. Baker said he thinks the City needs to be more active with this development. He asked if the parcels involved are owner occupied or if they are rentals. Zimmerman said there are some rental properties, but most of them are owner occupied. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners how they feel about guiding these properties Medium Density and added that he'd rather be more conservative about the density rather than allowing for higher density right away. Brookins said he sees High Density as a better option. Baker said starting with Medium Density and going to High Density might seem incremental and he doesn't want it to look like the City is playing games. Zimmerman added that if these properties are rezoned to R-4 a developer could build an apartment building without any affordable housing because they wouldn't need to apply for a rezoning which would trigger the affordable housing requirements. Brookins reiterated that he thinks this area should be high density especially with the amenities across Highway 55. Blum agreed and noted that when high density development has been discussed in the past they've talked about putting it on busier streets, highways, or major road intersections. Baker agreed that there are a lot of good reasons to zone these properties R-4. Zimmerman noted that if the intersection can't handle the traffic of a high density development that might bring the density of a development down and naturally solve some of issues. Blum referred to the area by Wally Street to the west and said that is another island of single family homes surrounded by more industrial type uses and questioned if that area should also be designated for higher density. Zimmerman stated that one of the big challenges in that area is that there is only one entrance into the neighborhood off of General Mills Blvd. Baker said he is supportive of higher density at the corner of Winnetka and Highway 55. Black asked if the City envisions higher density at this location. Zimmerman said yes, the City envisions some sort of higher density, but a traffic study will show better what type of use would work here. Pockl said she agrees with High Density Residential in this area and asked if there is a way to envelope the homes to the east across the street to Rhode Island Avenue. Zimmerman stated that the homes on Rhode Island Avenue are all brand new. The last area Zimmerman discussed was the properties on the west side of Winnetka Avenue south of Medicine Lake Road. He stated that the properties he is referring to are currently an office and a single family home. He said that there is not a demand for office in this area and the owner thinks a commercial use might be better. The neighborhood did not like the idea of a commercial use is this area and staff thinks Medium Density Residential might work here. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 3 8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30 inches into the setback area. 9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day. 10. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view. 11. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements. 12. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation. The Planning Commission bases its recommendation on the following findings: The significant neighborhood contributions that SuperAmerica is making Agreement to the 12 conditions of approval especially the improvement in lighting and noise issues 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue. The properties west of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Medium Density(R-3) ResidentiaP' and the properties to the east of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density(R-2) Residential." Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated General Land Use Plan Map Hogeboom explained that the City's updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010. As part of that process the City is required by the State to make sure the General Land Use Plan Map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the Zoning map. He referred to a map of the subject properties and explained that area A is the property north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka Avenue and west of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church. These properties are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density(R-3) Residential. Area B on the map includes the properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church and are proposed to be rezoned to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. He added that the R-3 zoning district would allow a development with up to 4 stories and 12 units per acre if it is non-senior housing. Senior housing would be allowed by Conditional Use with no specific density and height up to 5 stories. The R-2 zoning district would allow development with up to 8 units per acre for single family horr es, duplexes, twin homes or small townhouse developments. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 4 Hogeboom stated that the City has been contacted by different developers regarding this property throughout the years but that no developer has ownership of all of the parcels in question. Hogeboom noted that the City held an open house in June and some of the comments from people who attended the open house included concerns about the potential height of buildings, tree preservation and rising levels of traffic. He stated that Harold Avenue is planned to be reconstructed in 2012 and the zoning of these properties will help guide the design of Harold Avenue. Hogeboom reiterated that action must be taken by the City to either rezone the properties to match the General Land Use Plan Map or re-designate the General Land Use Plan Map to match the Zoning Map. Waldhauser asked Kotila to explain proposed plans for Winnetka Avenue. Kotila explained that there is an existing operational issue on Winnetka as well as concern about increases in traffic demand as a result of future development, enough that the City has applied to MnDOT for some cost participation to improve Winnetka Avenue at the Highway 55 intersection. He referred to a map of the area and discussed the proposed intersection design and how it would help the intersection operate more safely and efficiently. Cera asked if the proposed intersection changes are planned regardless of what happens to the future development of these properties. Kotila said the need for the.improvements currently exist but parts of the plan could change depending on what type of development occurs. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, referred to a section in the Comprehensive Plan that states all owners shall jointly petition for rezoning. He asked how many people have asked for this rezoning and how the City knows what is best for these people and for property values. Lee Brant, 7631 Harold Avenue, stated that she understood that the south bound lane on Winnetka would stop at the entrance of Brookview; now the lane seems to go south of the entrance of Brookview. She is also concerned about the removal of park land and trees. She asked if the properties were rezoned to R-3 how residents would know if something else, such as apartments or something other than senior housing would go there instead. Kathy Welander, 440 Idaho Avenue N, asked if there is any definition of what level of housing would be built from luxury to low income. If there is low income housing she questioned the level of crime and said she doesn't want people to come into their area that might raise crime. Gerry Deters, 7710 Harold Avenue, said he is concerned with how property taxes will be affected if the properties are rezoned. He added that most of the neighbors have no desire to move. He said he is under the impression that the proposed rezoning shouldn't affect their property values but he doesn't want his taxes to skyrocket as a result of this rezoning. He asked if there is a plan B or C if no developer comes in. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 5 Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said that what the City is not telling property owners is that when the properties are rezoned, owners will not be allowed to make changes or additions to their homes and are being forced out. He asked about the definition of non- compatible and urged the Commission to think about the amount of traffic with the proposed lane expansion and the safety of pedestrians. He stated that there is currently a lot of inventory of inedium and high density properties and asked why there is a need for more and what the purpose is for adding more. He asked who is asking for this rezoning and read from the City's vision guide and asked if this proposed rezoning matches the vision guide and if it is really the right thing to do. Sally Levens, 7811 Ewald Terrace, said something needs to be done about the traffic that backs up on Winnetka and the people who don't stop. She said there are lilies in the boulevard area that she is supposed to maintain but she is unwilling to risk her life in the traffic. She said that Winnetka Avenue doesn't need to be enhanced to make Highway 55 better and asked how many units of housing could be built. She added that she doesn't think it is safe or responsible to have higher density at this corner. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, said he agrees with his neighbors that rezoning these properties would be a big mistake. He said he didn't get a clear report on the comments from the June open house and there is no reference to what happens to property values and the whole make-up of the neighborhood. He said rezoning these properties is going to destroy a neighborhood and he gets the impression that no one is interested in hearing them. Dale Berg, 7040 Western Avenue, said he agrees with everything that has been said. He said he has heard little from the City regarding the reasons for doing this. He said he is concerned about mass transit and that there is already enough traffic on Louisiana due to Lion's Park. There is also not enough parking at Lion's Park and he hasn't heard anything about any type of environmental assessments regarding flooding. He said there is a natural barrier and you can't see or hear Highway 55 from his neighborhood and now he is going to feel like he is living in downtown Minneapolis with multi-level housing. He suggested the City buy the properties and give low interest home loans to young families with kids. Alan Ingber, 7360 Half Moon Drive, said he agrees with what has already been said. His concern is that Ridgeway Road will become more of a freeway with higher levels of traffic trying to get to I-394 and Laurel. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said there has been no talk about traffic on Harold Avenue. If these properties are developed the traffic will be like a funnel because there are constant problems at the corner of Harold and Winnetka. He asked if this rezoning is being done because of a developer. He added that the traffic really needs to be thought about because there are going to be massive problems. He said he thinks this is a really bad idea and maybe the City can work on getting the area fixed up and the homes occupied instead. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, said he did not buy his house with the intention of seeing a well-established neighborhood be overdeveloped with townhomes. He asked what City need this proposal serves and who asked for it because if there are actual people Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 6 involved who have asked for this, he deserves to know or if it is just a corporation pushing their agenda he deserves to know that too. He said if Winnetka is made wider it will only encourage more traffic on Winnetka because it is a thoroughfare and was made to be thoroughfare. He said the City is going in the wrong direction with these proposals and should be putting stop signs at every intersection to make it possible for families to cross the road and get into the park because cars don't stop. He added that everyone who is not a resident should be deterred from driving through this area and this proposal should not even be considered because it goes against everything in the vision guide for Golden Valley. Fred Gross, who lives in Burnsville, and owns the property at 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it was true that if the properties are rezoned homes can't be improved. He said somewhere, somebody thinks this is a good idea but he is not sure that it is. He asked if the City has considered ignoring what the non-elected Metropolitan Council has said or has considered changing the City's vision to match the current zoning instead. He added that no one is chomping at the bit" to have more traffic on Harold, Ridgeway or Winnetka. He asked if the City would consider condemning these properties if the owners decide not to sell. Julie Johnson, 300 Edgewood Avenue N, said she hasn't heard anything about the impact to Glenwood Avenue. She said she doesn't think this will only impact this small area it will impact the whole southern part of Golden Valley. She said she agrees with everything that has been said and she is totally against this proposal. Beverly Weinberg, 7523 Harold Avenue, said she has a major concern about the left hand turn from Harold onto Winnetka. She said at this time it is difficult and dangerous and if the traffic is heavier it will be almost impossible and will be asking for accidents. Schara Jesse, 743 Winnetka, said Ridgeway is a cut through thoroughfare and this development will escalate the problem. She said this issue comes up every decade and petitions have put a stop to it. She said the residents should get together and get a petition going. She suggested people call the City Council to find out who is asking for this and questioned if it is United Properties. She said she doesn't like this proposal. Kluchka said he categorized the questions into traffic, property and legal and asked Grimes to talk about his experience on how values and taxes are impacted by rezoning and by redevelopment. Grimes explained that taxes are set by Hennepin County based on the value of the property and its use. He referred to Area A and stated that if that area is rezoned to R-3 the existing properties will become non-conforming which means the homes can remain and be maintained and improved but they can't be expanded. In Area B the existing homes would be considered a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district so they could be expanded. He said he doesn't feel that rezoning these properties would decrease their value because it would be in effect "up zoning" which means they could have a higher value. Kluchka said the next issue is why there is a need for this rezoning. He said he is thinking about trends and how cities need to be responsible in meeting needs in appropriate ways such as providing senior housing. Grimes agreed there is a large aging population in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 7 Golden Valley. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council provided for additional types of housing opportunities during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. He added that Golden Valley is an attractive location as an inner ring suburb and unfortunately the Comprehensive Plan Amendment meetings and open houses don't draw large audiences because the entire City is being reviewed, not just certain areas. Waldhauser stated that the vision for the City, including this area did come from the Ciiy's residents with direction from the Metropolitan Council. She agreed that Golden Valley is a changing community and the Comprehensive Plan update sought to find a balance befinreen good change and preserving what's best of Golden Valley. Grimes referred to the question regarding the General Land Use Plan Map being required to be compatible with the Zoning Map and explained that the City Attorney's opinion is that the two maps should be compatible. He stated that the City could re-designate the properties back to single family residential but the Metropolitan Council looks at the metropolitan area as a whole in regard to transit, sewer, highways, etc. so Golden Valley likes to work together with the Metropolitan Council because not working with them may affect things like grants. Kluchka added that the City and the broader community get a benefit from meeting Metropolitan Council's goals and objectives. Grimes explained that according to Metropolitan Council projections there needs to be room in the metro area for another million people and it saves taxpayer money to develop or redevelop property already served by sewer, water and transportation. Kluchka asked if there is another plan in place for these properties if a development doesn't occur. Grimes stated that the development community is waiting to hear a decision from the City regarding the zoning of these properties. He added that the City Council has stated they will not use condemnation to develop these properties. It will have to be done by developers purchasing the properties at market rate. Waldhauser agreed that the City is not in the position to buy these properties. Kluchka asked if the City can control the type of development on these properties. Grimes stated that more than likely the properties will be a senior housing type of development. He explained that the traffic patterns for senior housing could work well in this location and that the City has latitude in approving things like landscaping plans and traffic plans as part of the Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development process. Waldhauser said she appreciates that people who live in the area see things she doesn't, but it seems like there are some long-term traffic issues in this area that this particular rezoning may or may not impact. Grimes referred to the question asked regarding environmental issues such as flooding and noted that those types of issues will be addressed at the time of development. Kotila referred to the safety issues that have been discussed and explained that he recognizes the need for pedestrian improvements at Winnetka and Harold. He discussed how traffic backing-up on Highway 55 makes every movement more difficult so fixing those issues should help alleviate some of the concerns. Kisch asked if increasing capacity would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 8 also increase demand. He also asked about implementing other safety and speed control measures. Kotila explained the approach is to try and serve the existing traffic demand and that he realizes some of the traffic will be dispersed to other locations. He stated that part of the Harold Avenue reconstruction project includes constructing a fairly narrow two-lane roadway which should help moderate the speed at which people drive. Grimes referred to the question regarding what type housing could be built this location. He stated that the City has no control over housing being low-income versus market rate. Waldhauser noted that the City tries to disperse its housing types. Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, asked why both areas couldn't be rezoned to R-2. Waldhauser stated that that Area A is at an intersection that faces a commercial district and a highway which provides a better opportunity for additional housing. She said her opinion is that Golden Valley is a fairly urban community and is a part of the City and in order to be a vibrant community and attract people who want to live here there needs to be community services, convenience, walkability and transit. Chesen said the way the properties are going to be developed isn't going to attract those types of people because senior housing is what has been proposed. Hogeboom showed a map illustrating the ownership of each parcel in Area A. Chesen stated that United Properties has attended meetings and questioned why they have been allowed to speak if the issue really is whether or not to rezone the properties. He said it sounds to him like a deal has already been done. Kluchka stated that developers are a part of the community and are welcome to attend City meetings. He said he wants it made clear that there is no malfeasance or arrangement happening outside the law. Chesen said he has stated nothing but the facts. Hogeboom stated that United Properties has made no official application submittal to the City. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if the City has considered selling part or all of Brookview Park to satisfy the Metropolitan Council and to meet its vision. Kluchka said it has been discussed in the past. Grimes added that a large portion of Brookview is in a flood plain. Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said the Commission still needs to answer the question of who is asking for this rezoning. He said he hasn't heard anything discussed but trends and told the Commission not to believe everything they read. He asked if these properties are bank owned why there aren't for sale signs on them. He said he thinks there is opportunity for developers and personal homeowners, himself included, to consider doing a "flip" and asked why that opportunity is only available to the private community and not the public community. He stated there are currently 190 homes, condos, townhomes and twin homes for sale in Golden Valley and told the Commission to think about the tax revenue of those 190 homes versus throwing somebody into an 800 square foot apartment. The "bigger bang" would be to encourage people to buy these properties, increase the value and get more property taxes rather than building a 5-story building with minimal property taxes which would drive everybody else's values down. Grimes referred to the question of who is asking for this and reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council chose to re-designate this area on the General Land Use Plan Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 9 Diane Stelow, 7335 Ridgeway Road, asked if these properties could have driveways entering and exiting on Highway 55 to get the traffic out of the neighborhood. Grimes said that MnDOT has said no. Kluchka said it is not hearsay that the population is changing so when they are asked who is asking for this rezoning the City Council has to look long-term at the broader needs of the community. McCarty added that the Metropolitan Council is asking for it because there needs to be more room to accommodate additional people so the Planning Commission's charge was to figure out the best way to utilize the property the City has. Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, asked if Golden Valley has any 5-story buildings next to residential property. Grimes said yes and mentioned Calvary, Covenant Manor and Laurel Terrace Apartments as examples. He asked how many empty buildings there are downtown and asked the Commission if they really believe it is in Golden Valley's best interest to solve the senior housing problem. He said Golden Valley is a small suburb in a big metro area and people will go where the housing opportunities are. He said he doesn't hear a single tax payer/voter asking for this. He added that if the City goes ahead and does this they are doing it without any regard to what the people who live in the neighborhood think. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it is possible that Central Bank does not have these properties marketed for sale because it is in their best interest to hold onto them for a developer interested in buying them. He asked why there are not any developers at this meeting and why there aren't any neighbors in attendance saying that this is a wonderful idea. Grimes agreed that Central Bank is more than likely waiting for the outcome of this rezoning proposal before they put the properties on the market. Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said people don't come to public hearings because they feel they don't have a voice in their government. That what they say goes in one ear and out the other. He said if something is this important it should be front page news and every resident should get a letter. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Cera proposed to split the areas into two votes. Waldhauser started with Area B. She stated that having worked on the Comprehensive Plan update process she really does feeY that the Plan was aired in many ways. She feels the City is changing and people need to change with it. She said that for commercial development to survive there needs to be density around it. She feels this area is a great place for a more dense development that will help get better transit and will help get some of the traffic off the local streets. She said she thinks there has been forward thinking and this proposed rezoning has the best interest of the community at heart. Kisch said he is concerned about the rights of home owners being able to improve their properties in Area A. He said that rezoning Area B to R-2 doesn't change property owners' rights at all and won't impact what is there right now and will only be changed as the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 10 market dictates. He added that the traffic concerns are valid and need to be addressed. Cera agreed. Schmidgall said he is in favor of recommending approval of the proposed rezoning for both areas. He said this is all long term planning and the homes in Area A could stay forever. He said they've talked a long time about providing a variety of housing types in Golden Valley including higher density for an aging population and there could be a very attractive development built in this area. He said he really tries to sort out the concerns he hears during public hearing and thinks the traffic issues are a legitimate concern but people worry about change and prefer the evil they know to the evil they don't. He said he really doesn't think there is an incentive for a developer to build something undesirable at this location. Kluchka said this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from the residents in the area. He said he is conflicted on how he feels about rezoning these properties and he wants the traffic concerns further studied before he can support the rezoning. McCarty agreed that traffic does need further study. He said there is a problem with houses sitting vacant and people shouldn't be pushed into single family homes because that is part of the reason the economy is how it is today. He said he also agrees with the need for increased density and even though it's difficult to hear from the neighbors, rezoning this property is for the overall good of the City so he is inclined to support the proposal. Kluchka asked about the opportunity to hear more about the traffic and safety concerns before the rezoning is considered by the City Council. Grimes stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated and re-designated to a higher density category, the traffic was studied using various development scenarios. Kotila noted that the City Council has received the forecasting report and specifics related to the proposed density. Grimes added that the transportation section of the updated Comprehensive Plan was done after the land use section so the City could be sure that traffic issues were managed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of rezoning Area B from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. Cera, Kisch, McCarty and Waldhauser voted yes. Kluchka voted no. Kisch said the issue in Area A lies in the rights of the property owners' ability to make changes and add value to their homes and rezoning to R-3 limits what can be done. He said he agrees that the City needs a diverse group of housing choices because it makes for a more solid and vibrant community, but he also needs to see what the traffic impacts are really going to be. McCarty noted that until it is decided what kind of development is going to be built, the traffic impacts are unknown. He added that he doesn't see these properties being used long-term for single family housing. Kluchka said his concerns are also about the traffic. He said he would like to look at rezoning the properties to Mixed Use instead of R-3 because he wants this area to contribute more to the neighborhood. Cera agreed that the idea of Mixed Use is intriguing in this area. He said properties zoned R-3 could sit for a while and go downhill. He said R-2 might be a better choice. He added that there is a roomful of citizens who have concerns Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 11 that should be listened to and he can't support R-3 at this location. He could support R-2 or discussing Mixed Use. Kisch said a Mixed Use zoning designation would cause a bigger issue with traffic. He said this is a stab at planning for the future and it can be rezoned or re-designated in the future if needed. Waldhauser said she is torn befinreen rezoning Area A to R-3 or R-2 because R-2 doesn't provide the opportunity for potential senior housing. She said she is not optimistic that a developer will want to develop these properties as single family or two-family homes. Grimes suggested studying the possibility of allowing senior housing in an R-2 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Kisch asked if the City could issue a Conditional Use Permit to allow a non-conforming use to be expanded. Grimes said he would talk to the City Attorney. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion tied to recommend rezoning Area A from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3). Commissioners McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Cera, Kisch and Kluchka voted no. Short Recess— 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals would like to Planning Commission to address the issue of covered and uncovered porches and landings. Hogeboom said he would discuss the issue with the Board at their next meeting. 5. Other Business No other business was discussed. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 pm. David A. Cera, Secretary July 19, 2020    Hi,    I attended the Planning Commissions Informal Hearing regarding the Amendments to Zoning  Map.  As it became apparent during the meeting there are concerns over the rezoning of Group  3 (aka area between Hwy 55 and Harold Ave + Winnetka and close to Rhode Island.     I was the party that had asked about if R‐2 Zoning had been considered.  After the discussion by  the parties on the commission on my question, I had some additional thoughts/questions on  the Zoning change:  1. One commission member had advised R‐2 was no considered as this zoning allows for  Duplex’s.  Why would a duplex be worse than a 4‐5 story building with 100+  units?  Couldn’t a Homeowners Association build duplexes (twin homes) where the  exterior would be maintained, as I have seen in many other suburb’s? Plus there is  already on twin‐home/duplex in the area of consideration.   2. Why was R‐3 zoning considered for this area, as there is no other zoning of this type  along Hwy 55 from Brookview Park to Hwy 100?  There is only a small R‐3 condo  complex (older apartments turned condo?) from Brookview to Hwy 169.   This does not  seem to be in line with the area’s current ascetics.  The closest R‐3 is much closer to 394  and in an area much more aligned with easy access to the freeway system and larger  concentration of public transportation.    3. Would an R‐3 zoning realistically bring in an age group that would be interested in using  the city’s downtown?  This area seems to be much more family or couple orientated,  while the R‐3 would likely bring units for younger singles or senior residents.  The young  single person would likely want to live were there is walking to groceries, night life, and  close to major public transportation line.  Other than the night life, these are what  senior residents would want too.  Currently there is minimal public transportation on  Winnetka.    4. Based on use I have seen in the GV downtown, wouldn’t an R‐2 bring in more of the  demographic that actually has interest in utilizing our Downtown and a larger portion of  Brookview?   5. R‐2 would retain more green space and be more in line with the immediate  neighborhood (Vallee D’Or and Rhode Island single family homes)?  The remainder of  the neighborhood, until close to 394, is R‐1 single family homes.   6. If R‐3 zoning increased to larger proposed density (20 units per acre or 30 units per acre  – senior):   a. Would this area be able to reasonably support this?  As the corners of  Winnetka/Hwy 55 and Glenwood/Hwy 55 are already backed up during rush  hours (in a “regular” world).   b. Would the units for an R‐3 zoning be of a size that would bring in people that  would be interested in living in this area?    7. Is there a Developer interested in building a Senior Residence?  As this area was  repeatedly referenced as being used for this purpose. Advising a walk bridge over Hwy  55 would be created to aid Seniors in utilizing the Senior Center and Downtown GV.    a. If there is a developer: Could a rendering of the proposed development be  provided?    b. If there is not a developer, why was there discussion assuming the area of  discussion would be developed into a Senior Residence?  As R‐3 allows for  Apartments, Condos, townhouses, etc. to be built.    8. Would Seniors actually use a walkway over Hwy 55 to GV downtown?   9. Another thought on R‐3 density adjustments: As R‐3 density has increased, has there  been any discussion on adjusting R‐2 density?  Should R‐2 be adjusted to allow for 10 or  12 units per acre (I believe I read this is currently 8 units per acre) and, maybe,  townhomes that would align with this density?  Then R‐3 could have a density starting  at  11 or 13 units to 20 units per acre density allowing for larger density townhomes,  condos, apartments, and senior residences.     Thank you for your time,  Tina Prokosch (7601 Harold Ave)     Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 2 Schmidgall asked if it would be an option to make the General Land Use Plan map match the Zoning map instead of the other way around. Grimes stated that the City Council has the right to change the General Land Use Plan map how they want. The current policy of the City as shown on the General Land Use Plan map is high density residential. Within the past year, the Planning Commission has suggested as part of the Comprehensive Plan update that these properties remain designated high density because this is a logical location for higher density development in Golden Valley. Keysser opened the public hearing. Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she is appalled and angry that she is even at this meeting. She said she is amazed that the Planning Commission hasn't heard of global warming because removing the trees from these properties amounts to deforestation. She said this shows the ignorance of governing bodies and asked what the sense is in using this property for someone's monetary gain. Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said the notification process for this meeting was very lax and the only way she found out about it was from a neighbor who said this proposal was already a done deal. She referred to the housing stock in the area and said "the GV Ghetto" is at the top of the hill and the rest of the area is small starter family homes with the majority being long time, highly-educated residents. She expressed concern over the size of the proposed buildings because four-story buildings will tower over the neighborhood. She said her other concerns include ambulances constantly driving by and the loss of green space and trees located on these properties. She said she is worried that this area will change too much and the City needs to consider the impact on the neighborhood because she is afraid it won't be community friendly. She said she would like the proposal to include a park or an area open to the public. She questioned the impacts to the creek and questioned what type of residents the proposed senior housing would have including violent people or people with dementia. She said she would be happy if a smaller assisted living home were built but the City needs to consider the impact to the smaller single family homes in the area. Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road, said he is concerned that a four-story building will be aesthetically displeasing. He is also concerned about what the building will look like and how higher density will affect the traffic. He said this proposal will cause a lot of change and it may be difficult getting on and off Golden Valley Road during the construction. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, said she did not receive a hearing notice for this meeting or for the meeting held by the applicant last Wednesday. She said at the applicant's meeting they were told that the Comprehensive Plan is calling for high density on these properties and that is what the City wants. She said she doesn't see how the City can pre-approve things without getting citizen input. She said she was also told by the applicant that they will not make any money from the 74-unit co-op building. She said that the proposed buildings will be too dense and questioned how many acres the project includes. Keysser stated that the project will be on 4.7 acres. Burrets expressed concern about how many people would be allowed to live on an acre. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 4 drive and that is "baloney". She said the City is really asking for problems and referred to all the buildings that are for currently for lease. She said the proposed buildings are too high and will block the sun and wreck the view. She asked why this corner and why this is a "cut and dry" deal. She added that if the Planning Commission wants to beautify Golden Valley they should do it with something else. Jeanne Nyatz, 1350 Douglas Drive, said she lives in the condominium building to the north and will look directly at the proposed buildings. She said she thinks the project is well planned and will be meticulously maintained and beautifully landscaped. She stated that she has never had a problem getting in and out her driveway on Douglas Drive and she doesn't think that the density of the proposed new buildings will be a problem. Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, suggested that people in the neighborhood sit through another presentation by United Properties because everyone that has spoken at this meeting has been misinformed and is misrepresenting the proposal. He stated that United Properties is a local company which has been around for 89 years and this is their sixth or seventh similar proposal. They are not coming from out of town and pillaging Golden Valley. He said they will be a good neighbor and a good addition to the area and he is in support of this proposal if they follow all of the City's guidelines. He questioned if rezoning these properties is just fixing a technicality on the zoning map. Keysser explained that the City's General Land Use Plan map has been designated high density for at least the last nine years. In order to make the Zoning map consistent with the existing General Land Use Plan map these properties need to be rezoned to the High Density Residential R-4 zoning district. Lager asked about the current Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission has recommended, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, keeping these properties designated high density. Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said she wants to reiterate that she is not against the proposal and suggested that a mass mailing be done to a 10-block radius and that the Planning Commission consider tabling this proposal. Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, referred to Mr. Lager's comment that there has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding this proposal and said she wants to know what has been misunderstood or misrepresented. Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, stated that he assumes the notification process followed all of the requirements. Grimes explained that the City of Golden Valley mails hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet. He added that the state statute requires hearing notices be mailed to property owners within 250 feet. Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she doesn't believe there has been any misrepresentation; people are just expressing their opinions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 6 McCarty said he is concerned that if this property is rezoned to R-4 and this project doesn't go through then someone could build a 96-foot tall building. He suggested reconsidering the General Land Use Plan map designation. Eck said the issue to consider is if R-4 is appropriate in this location because if the land use is changed to R-3 it would shoot this project down. Kluchka questioned if rezoning the properties to R-3 would make the apartments "not developable" . Eck stated that if the property is rezoned to R~4 it doesn't necessarily mean that a much taller or higher density project would be approved. Keysser questioned how a project could be denied if it were to meet all the zoning code requirements. Grimes explained that a PUD Permit requires a developer to stick to an approved plan. Cera asked if the PUD stays with the land. Grimes said yes and explained that if a developer in the future wanted to change an approved PUD Permit the City would have to rescind or amend the existing PUD Permit. Keysser asked for clarification that if someone in the future wanted to build something higher or something different they would have to amend the PUD. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall noted that the properties north of the creek are in the same situation. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties north of the creek are considered non-conforming and if the apartments to the north are re-developed they will more than likely be higher density because of the facts of the economy. Cera asked if the City could approve the rezoning request, but deny the PUD request. Grimes reiterated that the City Council has designated this area high density. If the Planning Commission doesn't agree that this area should be high density they could table the rezoning request and ask the City Council to reconsider the comprehensive plan designation. He stated that Golden Valley is currently 70% single family homes. The City has looked far and wide in Golden Valley for areas that could be designated higher density because the Planning Commission and City Council felt there needed to be areas designated for higher density uses and it was felt that this was a good area for higher density development. Waldhauser said they need to look at the City and see if there is a better location for this type of development and she doesn't think there is. Keysser said he is comfortable with rezoning the property knowing the City has the PUD process for protection. McCarty said he is curious as to what the Douglas Drive Corridor study will find because this project will set the tone for the rest of the corridor if this project goes forward. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2011 Page 3 Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed PUD amendment because it will be an improvement to the area. However, he would like to see more green space on the site. Kisch agreed and stated that he would like to add as a condition of approval that the area between the handicap parking stalls and the front area be striped. Segelbaum also agreed and said he thinks the proposal meets the criteria in the PUD ordinance. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of PUD #66, Amendment#4 to allow for the expansion of the showroom and entry of the Infiniti dealership plus a car wash addition to the north end of the building subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Lupient Automotive Group and include the following: existing and demolition site plan, proposed site plan, existing floor plans, orientation plans floor plans — building A, floor plans — building B and exterior elevations. 2. All recommendations and requirements outlined in the memorandum from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 27, 2011 shall become a part of this approval. 3. A landscape plan showing some restored green space shall be submitted before the Preliminary Plan goes to the City Council for consideration. 4. The walkway between the handicap parking stalls and the front entry shall be striped. 5. Staff will review the condition of the private roadway along the south property line to determine if any maintenance is required. 6. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North — Rezoning from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential -Z012-17 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North Purpose: To consider rezoning the properties from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map. Hogeboom referred to a map of the properties and explained the proposal to rezone them to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into Conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map. The land use designation on the General Land Use Plan Map for these properties is High Density Residential. Kluchka asked about the mailing list for the public hearing notifications. Hogeboom stated that the property owners received individual letters and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties received notification for this public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2011 Page 4 Segelbaum asked about the impact to the existing homes and if their use would be restricted. Hogeboom said the properties, if rezoned, would be considered to be non- conforming due to either the zoning or setback requirements. He explained that the homes can be maintained and improved but they could not expand. Kisch clarified the Zoning Map designations that would work in each the General Land Use Plan Map categories as follows: properties zoned R-1 and R-2 would be allowed in the Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-2 and R-3 would be allowed in the Medium-Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-3 & R-4 would be allowed in the Medium-High Density land use category and properties zoned R-3 and R-4 would be allowed in the High Density land use category. Kisch asked about the rationale in not allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning District. Grimes explained that allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning District would make long-term development more difficult. Hogeboom added that zoning districts help define where long-term higher density can be located versus long-term lower density. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Mark Schulte, 6336 Phoenix Street, stated he would like to know how this proposed rezoning impacts his neighborhood and his property value. He said there are a lot of neighbors who are concerned about how close they will be to high density housing and how property values will be affected. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked which properties have been acquired for the Douglas Drive Corridor Project. Hogeboom said there will be some properties acquired north of Golden Valley Road. Kisch referred to the Metropolitan Council's demographics regarding the rise in population and asked if this proposed rezoning with help the City plan for higher density especially since the corner of Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue is no longer being proposed for higher density. Hogeboom said the Metropolitan Council gives estimates based on regional levels and each City has to plan long-term for the increased population. Grimes stated that he feels a well-maintained and landscaped higher density development would fit in well in this area. McCarty asked why it is being limited to such low density. Hogeboom stated that a developer could petition the City in the future to rezone it to a higher density zoning category. Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed rezoning to R-3 residential, but he would not support a 60-foot high, vinyl sided building like what was proposed previously for this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 14, 2011 Page 5 Kluchka asked what uses would be considered Conditional Uses are in the R-3 Zoning District. Grimes read the following list of Conditional Uses found in the R-3 Zoning District in the City Code: Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons, Group Foster Homes, Senior and physical disability housing to a density in excess of 12 units per acre or up to 5 stories or 60 feet in height and retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties located at 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map. 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 The Commission discussed possible dates for the annual holiday party. The consensus was to have the party on December 7 at the Brookview GriIL 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. v!/ David A. Cera, Secretary September 9, 2020    In reference to your letter dated September 3, 2020, I am extremely concerned about the  rezoning of this area. I live at the Villa at 1350 Douglas Drive. Having Bassett Creek flowing  through our back yard and having the south view beyond the creek is a beautiful amenity. I am  sure placing a multi level complex at some time on the proposed area will only decrease  property values at the Villa.  I will be terribly disappointed should this happen.  Golden Valley  has erected several multi‐level buildings in the last few years. I would hope the tax revenue  from these buildings should supplement the city of Golden Valley very well. Please do not ruin  the esthetics is this community.  Respectfully,  Marlene Witucki      1      Date:  September 14, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Myles Campbell    Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP‐168) Amendment 1, to  allow for the expansion of a Child Care Center in an Institutional Zoning District      Property address: 145 Jersey Avenue South  Property owner: same as applicant  Applicant: Good Shepherd School    Lot size: 8.9 acres  Zoning District: Institutional I‐1    Future land use: Institutional – Assembly  Current use: Place of Worship, School and Child Care Center     Adjacent uses: Residential uses (west, north, east); Institutional (south)        2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)  2    Summary  The principal of Good Shepherd School, Stevi Evans, is requesting an amendment to an existing  CUP in order to allow for the expansion of the school’s child care center. The original CUP from  2019 had a condition that capped the number of child care participants, “The child care center  shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Human  Services, whichever is less.”     Child care centers in Minnesota must operate under a Child Care Center License issued by the  Minnesota Department of Human Services. Good Shepherd School has contacted DHS about  expanding their child care program, from one classroom to two. Because of the condition of the  original CUP, this action requires an amendment to the permit.    The original CUP was applied for and completed in 2019. This amendment would not require any  changes to the building footprint or exterior of the building. Many of the existing conditions at  the site have not changed since that original approval.    Existing Conditions  The principal structure on the lot is a one‐story building totaling 59,101 square feet. It currently  operates as the Good Shepherd Catholic Church and School. The north half of the structure  includes the church, gym, and social hall. The south half of the building includes the school of 15  classrooms, the school library, and a computer lab. Administrative offices are located in between  the church and the school. The principal structure conforms to setback and height regulations.  The main entrance for the school is on the east side of the building, adjacent to the parking lot.  The parking lot surrounds the building to the north and east.       Proposed Uses  Good Shepherd Catholic School is proposing to convert  another existing classroom in the building to serve as a  second child care center for up to an additional 20  children (highlighted in green to the left). The room is  located directly west of the existing pre‐k classroom and  has previously functioned as a library and music room at  the school. No further changes are being proposed at this  time to the building layout or use.                    3    Zoning Analysis  Parking  Use Requirement Calculation Minimum  Parking Spaces  Child Care  1 per 6 participants  40 participants    7  School 2 per classroom    14 classrooms     28  Place of  Worship  1 per 3 seats in main  assembly area (where the  number of required parking  spaces is measured by  maximum seating capacity)  450 occupant load in Church   + 300 occupant load in Social  Hall = 750  250  Total   285  Existing   263  Difference    ‐22    Potential Parking Reduction  Under Section 113‐151. Off‐Street Parking and Loading. (b)(23) Potential Reduction.  The City makes an allowance for circumstances where the required minimum parking may be  reduced:    The City may allow up to 50 percent reduction when joint use or combined parking is provided  for uses which have substantially different parking demands and peak parking needs such as a  daytime use with a nighttime use (e.g., office and movie theater) or a week day use with a  weekend use (e.g., office and a church). Such reduction may require an agreement between the  uses and an agreement between the owners and City. Such agreement may also be subject to  proof of parking.    The church operates primarily on the weekends and requires a minimum of 250 parking spaces.  The school/child care center operates on the weekdays and requires a minimum of 35 parking  spaces. Since the parking lot is sized to accommodate the larger demand for parking on the  weekends (263 spaces) and there have been no issues with parking shortages on the property on  weekdays, staff is comfortable allowing a parking reduction for this site. Any future expansions of  the campus may trigger the need for a formal parking agreement between the owner and the  City, depending on a future parking analysis.    Bicycle Parking  The site is required to provide 15 bicycle parking spaces and there are currently 16 on site.     Employees, Visitors, and Hours of Operation  There are currently 29 school staff members, which includes 21 teachers, 5 teaching aides, and 3  administrative employees. The hours of operation for the child care center would remain the  4    same for the existing program and for the school overall, 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday.  Good Shepherd Catholic Church hosts mass on Saturdays at 5 pm and Sundays at 8:30 am and  10:30 am. Each session of mass has an average attendance of 300 people.     All drop‐offs and pick‐ups currently occur on site. The school has received some feedback and  advice from police on how to minimize congestion and traffic on both Jersey and Western,  although staff have not received complaints or heard of issues with queueing in the public right‐ of‐way at this time. Preschool drop‐off and pick‐up enters the site from Jersey, while school age  families enter from Western. Drop‐off typically occurs between 7:45‐8:10 a.m., while pick‐up  occurs between 2:40‐3:00 p.m.    Evaluation  The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors  (which need not be weighed equally):  Factor Finding  1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Child care is a necessary service  for many members of the community. A child  care center was previously requested by  parents in the K‐6 school. The expansion from  20 to 40 children is a reasonable increase so  long as the building is able to adequately serve  the students, which it appears to be.   2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is consistent  with the Institutional designation in the  Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child  care centers.   3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to affect property values in a  substantial way.  4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard conditionally met. Traffic flows are  not anticipated to be substantially different  from those that currently exist. The peak hours  have been identified by the school and they  have worked with the Police Department in  order to minimize congestion. The amount of  additional cars coming through the parking lot  because of the added number of children is  not expected to significantly impact traffic  flow. While there is not currently a problem  with overflow into the streets, city staff  5    Factor Finding  suggest that the applicant complete a  circulation plan for the site, in order to  maximize the effective sue of its large parking  lot and queuing area and to preempt any  potential issues down the road.   5. Effect of Increases in Population and  Density  Standard met. The School currently has 29  employees. The amendment would allow for  an increase of 20 children in the preschool  program, however the site is able to  accommodate this growth in population  without negatively affecting neighboring  property owners.   6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed‐Income  Housing Policy  Not applicable.  7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to generate excessive noise. Other  than afterschool meetings and activities, no  regular night‐time activities are expected.   8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or  Vibration  Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust,  smoke, gas, or vibrations.  9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to attract pests.  10. Visual Appearance Standard met. No exterior improvements are  associated with this proposal. Future  improvements to the parking lot will need to  incorporate minimum standards in City Code.  11. Other Effects upon the General Public  Health, Safety, and Welfare  Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to have any other impacts on the  surrounding area.     Engineering Staff has reviewed the application and only raised the point that a circulation plan or  study may be a good idea given that the applicant has received some direction on queuing from  the Police, they otherwise have not had any reports of significant parking or congestion issues  around the site. Engineering staff supports approval of the CUP. The Fire Department has  6    reviewed the application and has no additional concerns. Fire staff support the approval of the  CUP.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168,  Amendment 1, allowing for a Child Care Center in an Institutional I‐1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey  Avenue South. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with  Hennepin County. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment is subject to the  following conditions:    1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the  Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less.   2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the  CUP.   3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of  Human Services.   4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from  7 am to 6 pm.   5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop‐off and pick‐up  procedures, to be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Staff.    Attachments  CUP Amendment Application (3 pages)  Capacity Notification from MNDHS (1 page)  Original CUP Memo to PC –June 10, 2019 (6 pages)  Minutes from Planning Commission – June 10, 2019 (4 pages)  Site Plan (5 pages)      1      Date:  June 10, 2019  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer    Emily Anderson, Planning Intern  Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP‐168) to Allow for a Child  Care Center in an Institutional Zoning District      Property address: 145 Jersey Avenue South  Property owner: same as applicant  Applicant: Good Shepherd School    Lot size: 8.9 acres  Zoning District: Institutional I‐1    Future land use: Institutional – Assembly  Current use: Place of Worship and School  Proposed use: Child Care Center (Preschool)  Adjacent uses: Residential uses (west, north, east); Institutional (south)        2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)  2    Summary  The principal of Good Shepherd School, Mike McGinty, is requesting a CUP in order to allow for  the operation of a one‐room child care center for up to 20 children. Child care centers in  Minnesota must operate under a Child Care Center License issued by the Minnesota Department  of Human Services.    Existing Conditions  The principal structure on the lot is a one‐story building totaling 59,101 square feet. It currently  operates as the Good Shepherd Catholic Church and School. The north half of the structure  includes the church, gym, and social hall. The south half of the building includes the school of 15  classrooms, the school library, and a computer lab. Administrative offices are located in between  the church and the school. The principal structure conforms to setback and height regulations.  The main entrance for the school is on the east side of the building, adjacent to the parking lot.  The parking lot surrounds the building to the north and east. A parking analysis is also provided in  this memo. There is an accessory structure located on the same property, addressed at 225  Jersey Avenue South.     Proposed Uses  Good Shepherd Catholic School is proposing to convert one classroom to a child care center for  up to 20 children. The applicant notes that for fall 2019, all 20 spots are filled, with 50% of the  children enrolled in the preschool coming from families with older children who attend the grade  school. The church and K‐6 classrooms would continue operating as they do today. More details  about daily operations are provided in the zoning analysis.     Zoning Analysis  Parking  Use Requirement Calculation Minimum  Parking Spaces  Child Care  1 per 6 participants  20 participants    4  School 2 per classroom    15 classrooms     30  Place of  Worship  1 per 3 seats in main  assembly area (where the  number of required parking  spaces is measured by  maximum seating capacity)  450 occupant load in Church   + 300 occupant load in Social  Hall = 750  250  Total   284  Existing   263  Difference    ‐21        3    Potential Parking Reduction  The City may allow up to 50% reduction in the minimum parking requirement for a property  when combined parking is provided for uses that have substantially different parking demands  and peak parking needs. Examples listed in the City Code include a combination of daytime use  with a nighttime use (e.g., office and movie theater) or a week day use with a weekend use (e.g.,  office and a church).    The church operates primarily on the weekends and requires a minimum of 250 parking spaces.  The school operates on the weekdays and requires a minimum of 30 parking spaces. The addition  of the child care room on weekdays would only require 4 additional parking spaces. Since the  parking lot is sized to accommodate the larger demand for parking on the weekends (263 spaces)  and there have been no issues with parking shortages on the property on weekdays, staff is  comfortable allowing a parking reduction for this site. Any future expansions of the campus may  trigger the need for a formal parking agreement between the owner and the City, depending on a  future parking analysis.    Bicycle Parking  The site is required to provide 15 bicycle parking spaces and there are currently 16 on site.     Employees, Visitors, and Hours of Operation  There are currently 27 school staff members, which includes 22 teachers, 2 teaching aides, and 3  administrative employees. The applicant intends to hire 2 to 3 additional employees for the child  care center. The hours of operation for the proposed child care center are anticipated to be 7 am  to 6 pm, Monday through Friday. The K‐6 school has a current enrollment of 265 students from  193 families. The child care center would provide for 20 additional children. The general hours of  operation for the child care center would be 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays.     All drop‐offs and pick‐ups currently occur on the east side of the building at the doors near the  proposed preschool and near the existing kindergarten rooms, administrative offices, and  handicapped parking spaces. The applicant notes that because of the L‐shaped parking lot, car  stacking for parents has never extended out into the nearby streets. The applicant notes that  parents have the choice of having children bussed to school as well. It is also noted that some  after school events are held at the church, such as sports practices and games, Cub Scouts  meetings, Girl Scout meetings, and various church meetings and events.     Deliveries to the property are also made on the east side of the building near the administrative  offices. There is not expected to be a noticeable difference in deliveries to the site. Currently,  there is one daily delivery to the lunchroom at approximately 6:45 each morning, prior to child  drop‐off. The property does not accept deliveries during child drop‐off and pick‐up times. Linens  are delivered once a month.      Good Shepherd Catholic Church hosts mass on Saturdays at 5 pm and Sundays at 8:30 am and  10:30 am. Each session of mass has an average attendance of 300 people. There are 4 regular  4    employees, 2 administrative employees, and 3 maintenance employees at the Church. Some  employees work on a part‐time basis.      Future Expansions  No exterior changes are anticipated at this time, but Good Shepherd Catholic Church and School  are working with an architecture firm to begin a master planning process. The firm will conduct a  feasibility analysis to assess the ability to expand the building and its program offerings in the  future. CUP 168 is focused on the current proposal for one child care room to serve up to 20  children. Public hearings through a CUP Amendment process would be required for additional  expansions of the Child Care Center. Any future additions will have to conform to all City Code  regulations. Any potential need for a formal parking agreement between the owner and the City  will be analyzed at that time.     Neighborhood Notification  Property owners within 500 feet of this proposal were notified by mail. To date, staff has not  been contacted regarding any questions or concerns.    Evaluation  The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors  (which need not be weighed equally):  Factor Finding  1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Child care is a necessary service  for many members of the community. The  applicant notes that families attending the K‐6  school on site have requested a child care  center for several years. Additionally, the  applicant notes that the spaces for up to 20  children have been reserved. It is also noted  that expansion may occur in the future.  2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is consistent  with the Institutional designation in the  Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child  care centers.   3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to affect property values in a  substantial way.  4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard met. Traffic flows are not anticipated  to be substantially different from those that  currently exist. Employees of the child care  center would arrive between 7 and 8 am and  5    Factor Finding  depart between 3 and 6 pm on weekdays. The  amount of additional cars coming through the  parking lot because of the added number of  children is not expected to significantly impact  traffic flow. The church does not currently  have a problem with overflow into the streets  and city staff do not anticipate this issue to  begin to occur because of the added child care  center for up to 20 children.   5. Effect of Increases in Population and  Density  Standard met. The School currently has 27  employees, which would grow by 2 to 3 new  employees. The Church currently has 9  employees and that would not increase with  this proposal. There are currently 265 students  enrolled at the K‐6 school. The preschool  (childcare center) would allow for 20  additional children in the building. The site is  able to accommodate this growth in  population without negatively affecting  neighboring property owners.   6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed‐Income  Housing Policy  Not applicable.  7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to generate excessive noise.  8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or  Vibration  Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust,  smoke, gas, or vibrations.  9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to attract pests.  10. Visual Appearance Standard met. No exterior improvements are  associated with this proposal. Future  improvements to the parking lot will need to  incorporate minimum standards in City Code.  11. Other Effects upon the General Public  Health, Safety, and Welfare  Standard met. The proposed use is not  anticipated to have any other impacts on the  surrounding area.   6    The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has no additional concerns. The  property is currently non‐compliant with the City’s Inflow and Infiltration requirements, but a  deposit has been made to conduct the sanitary sewer corrections. Engineering staff supports  approval of the CUP. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no additional  concerns. Fire staff support the approval of the CUP.    Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168 allowing  for a Child Care Center in an Institutional I‐1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey Avenue South.  Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin  County. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:    1. The child care center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the  Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less.   2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the  CUP.   3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of  Human Services.   4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from  7 am to 6 pm.     Attachments  Location Map (1 page)  Applicant Narrative (2 pages)  Plans submitted May 16, 2019 (5 pages)  multi-purpose 103 kitchen 105 gym 108 hall 106 storage 107 social hall 117 church 125 office 129 office 132 preschool 134 kindergarten 159 kindergarten 160storage / mechanical 161 mech 158 teachers lounge 156 4th grade 155 4th grade 154 3rd grade 153 3rd grade 152 specialist office 151 storage 150 1st grade 149 1st grade 148 2nd grade 146 2nd grade 145 computer lab 144 storage / servers 143 office 137 6th grade 139 5th grade 142 5th grade 141 6th grade 140 mech 135 boys 157 t 138 t 156b st 151b sacristy 127 cry room 128 kitchen 115 storage 114 storage 116 storage 119 storage 118 narthex 123 lobby 121 hall 113 mens 109 womens 110 office 111 hall 126 office 102 womens 163 mens 162 vest 100 t 130 vest 147 vestibule 120 vestibule 112 615 SF 300 2 4408 SF 15 293 1068 SF 200 5 721 SF 20 36 2043 SF 20 102 270 SF 100 3 6254 SF PEWS 450 4503 SF 15 300 363 SF 200 2 187 SF 100 1 383 SF 100 3 317 SF 100 3 376 SF 100 3 766 SF 100 8 916 SF 300 3 787 SF 20 39 799 SF 20 39 774 SF 20 38 228 SF 300 1 257 SF 300 1 girls 136 940 SF 20 47 965 SF 20 48 959 SF 20 47 919 SF 20 45 335 SF 100 3 334 SF 100 3 470 SF 300 2 799 SF 20 39 811 SF 20 40 786 SF 20 39 774 SF 20 38568 SF 20 28 328 SF 300 1 959 SF 20 47 965 SF 20 48 940 SF 20 47 919 SF 20 45 292 SF 100 2 music 104 library 133 nursing 131 hall 122 stor 124 total building occupant load = 1,926 141 SF 300 1 592 SF 300 2 105 SF 300 1 194 SF 300 1 199 SF 300 1 423 SF 100 4 273 SF seats 15 vest 101 240 36" 66" 155 31" 66" 154 31" 66" 155 31" 66" 300 45" 66" 51 8" 33" 286 43" 99" 50 10" 33" 50 10" 33" 300 60" 132" 225 45" 132" 1 12 11 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2HR FIRE SEPERATION EXISTING TO REMAIN E OCCUPANCYA-3 OCCUPANCY 704 OCCUPANTS1,222 OCCUPANTS exterior step exterior step exterior step 200 30" 66" not an exit exterior step NOTE: THIS ROOM IS TO BE LICENSED FOR 18 PRESCHOOL CHILDREN AGES 3-4CODE SYMBOL LEGEND: 1211 100 13 68 26.25 175 ROOM FLOOR AREA (SF) OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR OCCUPANT LOAD OCCUPANTS EXITING REQUIRED EXIT WIDTH (INCHES) ACTUAL EXIT WIDTH (INCHES) 1 FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATION 2 DRINKING FOUNTAIN 3 BARRIER-FREE TOILET SHADED AREA INDICATES NO WORK - EXISTING TO REMAIN CODE SUMMARY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 - USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 303 - Assembly Group A-3 (Place of Worship) SECTION 305 - Educational Group E CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS SECTION 503 General Height and Area Limitations Existing building footprint to remain existing - no additional square footage added to the building. SECTION 508 Mixed Use and Occupancy Table 508.4 Required Separation of Occupancies (Hours) A Occupancy and E Occupancy - no seperation required * Building is equipped with an Automatic fire-extinguishing system, existing to remain CHAPTER 9 - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS SECTION 903 Automatic Sprinkler System * Fire Sprinkler System is existing to remain SECTION 906 Portable Fire Extinguishers 906.1 Portable Fire Extinguishers Existing fire extinguishers to remain as is. CHAPTER 10 - MEAN OF EGRESS SECTION 1004 OCCUPANT LOAD 1004.1 Design Occupant Load Table 1004.1.2 Maximum Floor Area Allowances per Occupant Assembly without fixed seats Concentrated (chairs only - not fixed) = 7 net Unconcentrated (tables & chairs, meeting & stage) = 15 net Business Areas = 100 gross Kitchen = 200 gross Educational - Classroom Areas/Sound Booth = 20 net Accessory storage/mechanical areas = 300 gross SECTION 1005 Egress Width Table 1005.1 Egress Width per Occupant Served (With Sprinkler System) Inches per occupant = 0.15 @ Egress Components (Doors) SECTION 1014 Exit Access 1014.3 Common path of travel: Shall not exceed 75 feet SECTION 1015 Exit and Exit Access Doorways 1015.1 Exit or exit access doorways required: 2 exits required when occupant load exceeds 49 SECTION 1016 Exit Access Travel Distance Table 1016.2 Exit Access Travel Distance: A and E Occupancy, maximum travel distance = 250' (if fully sprinkled) CHAPTER 29 PLUMBING SYSTEMS PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNT: SECTION 29 PLUMBING SYSTEMS - Table 2902.1 Note: Building Occupancies A-3 and E are not used simultaniously. WATER CLOSETS REQUIRED A-3 ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY (1,222 occupants 611 Male and 611 Female) MALE = 1 Water Closet per 150 Occupants 611 Male Occupants = 5 Water Closets Required FEMALE = 1 Water Closet per 75 Occupants 611 Female Occupants = 9 Water Closets Required E EDUCATIONAL OCCUPANCY 704 OCCUPANTS = 1 Water Closet per 50 Occupants 15 Water Closets Required 14 Womens Provided 5 Mens Provided 11 Urinals Provided LAVATORIES REQUIRED A-3 ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY = 1 per 200 1,222 = 7 required E EDUCATIONAL OCCUPANCY = 1 per 50 704 = 15 required 6 female provided 4 male provided Community Sinks provided outside of school restrooms 136 and 157 DRINKING FOUNTAINS REQUIRED: A-3 Assembly = 1 per 1,000 E Educational = 1 per 100 2 provided OTHER: 1 Service Sink Required, 1 Service Sink Existing 59,101 SFTOTAL EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2015 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE AND 2015 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE CODE PLAN KEYNOTES: INDICATES 2-HR FIRE SEPERATION 9600 54TH AVE NORTH, SUITE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 (763) 541-9552 FAX: (763) 541- 9857 www.vanmanab.com COPYRIGHT C ISSUE DATE: 2019 SIGNATURE: #DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE: REGISTRATION #46297 PRINT NAME: Angie Knodel 3-22-19 TITLE SHEET & CODE ANALYSIS G-100 Good Shepherd Catholic Church 145 Jersey Avenue South Golden Valley, Minnesota Interior Remodel For: SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"G-100 1 CODE ANALYSIS PLAN NORTH Interior Remodel For: 145 Jersey Avenue South Golden Valley, Minnesota GOOD SHEPHERD CATHOLIC CHURCH SHEET INDEX G-100 Title Sheet & Code Analysis D-100 Demolition Floor Plan A-101 Site Plan A-102 Floor Plan A-401 Enlarged Plans & Details PROJECT TEAM OWNER: GOOD SHEPHERD CATHOLIC CHURCH 145 JERSEY AVE SOUTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 ARCHITECT: VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS 9600 54TH AVE N, STE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 PHONE: 763-541-9552 FAX: 763-541-9857 PROJECT ARCHITECT: ANGIE KNODEL (angie@vanmanab.com) GENERAL TO BE DETERMINED: CONTRACTOR: MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL DESIGN / BUILD ENGINEER: LOCATOR MAP multi-purpose103kitchen105hall106church125office129office132preschool134kindergarten159kindergarten160storage /mechanical161mech158919 SF4th grademech135sacristy127cry room128hall126womens163mens162vest100tmusic104nursing131office102storagelibrary133gym108D1D2D4D3D33' - 4" 1' - 8"D5D1D2D3D4DEMOLITION KEYNOTESGENERAL DEMOLITION NOTESA. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.B. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.C. ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR. THESE MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND LEGALLY.D. ADJACENT MATERIALS SHALL BE LEFT CLEAN AND PREPARED TO RECEIVE SCHEDULED FINISHES.E. MAINTAIN & STOCKPILE EXISTING MATERIALS FOR PATCHING.SYMBOL LEGENDTO BE DEMOLISHED/REMOVEDEXISTING WALL TO REMAINEXISTING TO REMAINREMOVE PORTION OF WALL AS SHOWN FOR NEW DOOR OPENINGREMOVE DOOR, FRAME, & HARDWAREFLOOR FINISH TO REMAIN THIS ROOMREMOVE FLOOR FINISH THIS ROOMD5REMOVE EXISTING CABINETRY IN ITS ENTIRITY9600 54TH AVE NORTH, SUITE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442(763) 541-9552 FAX: (763) 541- 9857 www.vanmanab.comCOPYRIGHTCISSUE DATE: 2019SIGNATURE:#DATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTADATE: REGISTRATION #46297PRINT NAME: Angie Knodel3-22-19DEMOLITION FLOORPLAND-100Good ShepherdCatholic Church145 Jersey Avenue SouthGolden Valley, MinnesotaInterior Remodel For:SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D-1001DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANNORTH PLAYGROUND TOTAL EXISTING PARKING STALLS TO REMAIN: 254 IN MAIN LOT 9 IN BACK LOT 263 TOTAL SPOTS 8 TOTAL HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE SPOTS 44 41 41 25 38 29 29 7 9 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDING 9600 54TH AVE NORTH, SUITE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 (763) 541-9552 FAX: (763) 541- 9857 www.vanmanab.com COPYRIGHT C ISSUE DATE: 2019 SIGNATURE: #DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE: REGISTRATION #46297 PRINT NAME: Angie Knodel 3-22-19 SITE PLAN A-101 Good Shepherd Catholic Church 145 Jersey Avenue South Golden Valley, Minnesota Interior Remodel For: SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A-101 1 SITE PLAN NORTH multi-purpose 103 kitchen 105 hall 106 church 125 office 129 office 132 preschool 134 kindergarten 159 kindergarten 160 storage / mechanical 161 mech 158 mech 135 sacristy 127 cry room 128 hall 126 womens 163 mens 162 vest 100 t music 104 nursing 131 office 102storage library 133instrument storagegym 108 A-401 5 3 24 A-401 1 A-401 6 A-401 7 8 9 10 108 104 CPT-1 CPT-2 LVT-1 CPT-2 LVT-1 M3b M3n NOTE: EXISTING CLERESTORY WINDOW TO BE COVERED BETWEEN KITCHEN AND MUSIC ROOM. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING WINDOWS AND FILL WITH INSULATION AND PROVIDE CMU FILL IN ON KITCHEN SIDE TO MATCH ADJACENT MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE PRICING TO KEEP EXISTING WINDOWS AND BLACK OUT KITCHEN SIDE WITH FROSTED FILM. PROVIDE NEW HOLLOW METAL FRAME WITH WOOD DOOR. CUT NEW OPENING AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE LINTEL AS REQUIRED. PATCH AND PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT MATERIAL. M3n M3n FILL IN EXISTING DOOR REMOVE EXISTING SHEET ROCK THIS SIDEPROVIDE BATT INSULATION IN EXISTING FRAMED WALL TO PROVIDE STC-40 RATING BETWEEN ROOMS - GYP BD AND INSULTION OT EXTEND FROM FLOOR SLAB TO DECKSTC-4033WRAP GYP BD BACK TO HM FRAME 3 3 4 4 4 4 FLOOR ROOM NAMEROOM #MAT. ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FIN. BASE MAT.FIN. NORTH WALL MAT.FIN. EAST WALL MAT.FIN. SOUTH WALL MAT.FIN. WEST WALL MAT.FIN. CEILING MAT.FIN.HEIGHT NOTES 104 MUSIC (E) CONC 134 PRESCHOOL (E) CONC 103 MULTIPURPOSE (E) CONC VB VB VB -- -- --GB PT CMU PT CMU PT ETR --- ETR --- ETR --- ETR ETR ETR CPT LVT VARIES CMU PT CMU PT CMU PT CMU PT GB PT CMU PT CMU PT GB PT CMU PT F1 HM F.F.E.AS SCHED.2 1/4"2 1/4"2 1/4" DOOR / INTERIOR WINDOW FRAME TYPES JAMB DOOR WIDTH DOOR #HEIGHT THK FIRE RATINGTYPEMATLGLAZTYPEMATL FRAME HDWR GROUP NOTES HEAD SILL DETAILS DOOR SCHEDULE 3'-0" 7'-0"1.0 --- THRESHOLD ---11/A-401 (SIM)11/A-401 F2HM1/4" TEMP104 108 12 A-401 13 A-401 D1 WD AS SCHED. 1 3/4"WD D1 3'-0" 7'-0"1.0 --- ---F1HM1/4" TEMP1 3/4"WD D2 12/A-401 13/A-401 F2 HM2 1/4"AS SCHED.2 1/4"AS SCHED. 2 1/4" 6' - 4" 2 1/4" 11 A-401 11 A-401 11 A-401 D2 WD NOTES: 1. DOOR HARDWARE WITH SECURITY FEATURES TO MATCH EXISTING DOOR CLASSROOM HANDLES. 2. CLASSROOM DOORS TO ACHIEVE AN STC RATING OF 40 OR MORE. 1, 2 1, 2-- -- VISION LITE - 1 8"3' - 0"6"6" GL1 GL1 1/4" TEMPERED GLASS; CLEAR GL1 GL1 2 1/4"2' - 6"2 1/4"4' - 1 1/2"2 1/4"2' - 9 1/4" INTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE CPT-1 MATERIAL MANUFACTURER TYPE /STYLE COLOR / PRODUCT # MISCELLANEOUS INFO CPT-2 CPT-3 TBD TBD TBD WALK OFF CARPET TILE LVT-1 PT-1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SHERWIN WILLIAMS PT-2 PT-3 SHERWIN WILLIAMS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SHERWIN WILLIAMS TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD --- --- --- TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD A 9' - 10" A 9' - 2" EXISTING CEILING TO REMAIN EXISTING CEILING TO REMAIN multi-purpose 103 music 104 EXISTING LIGHTING TO REMAIN NOTE: MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPLY AND RETURN AIR FOR THIS ROOM. VERIFY FRESH AIR REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. 1 2 2 2 3 5/8" METAL STUDS FRICTION FIT SOUND BATTS FULL HEIGHT OF WALL (FLOOR TO DECK ABOVE) WALL TYPES M3b 4 7/8" 5/8" GYP BD EACH SIDE 3 5/8" METAL STUDS FRICTION FIT SOUND BATTS FULL HEIGHT OF WALL (FLOOR TO DECK ABOVE) M3n 5/8" GYP BD 4 1/4"SEE PLAN EXIST WALL (E) STC - 40 STC - 40 1 2 CEILING MOUNTED PROJECTOR - PROVIDED BY GOOD SHEPHERD 3 4 5 PLAN KEYNOTES PROVIDE NEW 3-WAY LIGHT SWITCH AT THIS LOCATION CEILING MOUNTED SPEAKERS TO CONNECT WITH EXISTING SCHOOL SOUND SYSTEM PROVIDE QUAD OUTLETS AT THIS AREA - OWNER TO ADVISE FINAL LOCATION 9600 54TH AVE NORTH, SUITE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 (763) 541-9552 FAX: (763) 541- 9857 www.vanmanab.com COPYRIGHT C ISSUE DATE: 2019 SIGNATURE: #DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE: REGISTRATION #46297 PRINT NAME: Angie Knodel 3-22-19 FLOOR PLAN A-102 Good Shepherd Catholic Church 145 Jersey Avenue South Golden Valley, Minnesota Interior Remodel For: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-102 1 FLOOR PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-102 2 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN NORTH 104NEW GYP BD WALL TO BE PAINTED108NEW GYP BD WALL TO BE PAINTEDNEW GYP BD WALL TO BE PAINTEDNEW 4' X 12' WHITE BOARD2' - 0"EXISTING SMART BOARDRELOCATED2' - 6"EXISTING WALL TO BE PAINTEDNEW GYP BD WALL TO BE PAINTED48"42"42"48"36" DEEP PLAM CABINETS WITH ADJUSTABLE SHELVINGFILLER2"FILLER2"8' - 0"EXISTING WALL TO BE PAINTEDA-4015324music1046' - 0 1/2"3' - 4"1' - 8"8"M3nM3bSTC 40piano104108A-4011312' LONG WHITE BOARDRELOCATED SMART BOARD8' TALL PLAM CABINETS FOR INSTRUMENT STORAGE(5) 30" WIDE EXISTING METAL CABINETS TO BE RELOCATEDpreschool134A-40178910PARALLEL APPROACH PROVIDED AT SINK ACCORDING TO SECTION 606.2 OF THE 2015 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE2' - 7 1/2" AFF (FIELD VERIFY)PLAM COUNTERTOPPLAM COUNTERTOPAND BACKSPLASH2' - 4" AFF3' - 0" AFFPLAM COUNTERTOPAND BACKSPLASH36"B 42"B 42"B 42"36"SB 30"B 24"36"W 42"W 42"W 42"36"W 24"W 30"3' - 0"1' - 6"3' - 6"2' - 4"2' - 2"3' - 6"8' - 0"PLAM COUNTERTOP AND BACKSPLASHPLAM COUNTERTOP AND BACKSPLASHSINK AND FAUCETPLAM FINISHED ENDNOTE:PLAM CABINETS TYPCIAL TO MATCH EXISTING CABINETS IN BUILDING -PROVIDE ADJUSTABLE SHELVINGEXISTING WALL TO BE PAINTEDPROVIDE NEW PLAM COUNTERTOP AT THIS LOCATION(FIELD VERIFY CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS)B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"B 42"2' - 7 1/2"PROVIDE ADJUSTABLE SHELVING AT EACH CABINETNEW PLAM CABINETS, TYPEXISTING WALL TO BE PAINTEDEXISTING WALL TO BE PAINTEDSEE PLANSSILENCERS (3)HOLLOW METAL FRAMENOTE:SEALANT EA SIDEFOR WALL WIDTH, SEE WALL TYPESDOOR - SEE SCHEDULEREINFORCE FRAME AT HARDWARE5/8" GYP BD OVER METAL STUD FRAMINGJAMB ANCHORSHOLLOW METAL FRAME, GROUT SOLIDDOOR - SEE SCHEDULEEXST WALL CONSTRUCTIONFRAME ANCHOR, FILL AND GRIND SMOOTHGYP BOARD FINISHPAINTED5/8" GYP BD OVER 3 5/8" MTL STUD FILLED WITH BATT INSULATIONEXST WALL CONSTRUCTIONHM DOOR & FRAME,SEE SCHEDULE, GROUT FRAME SOLIDFRAME ANCHOR5/8" GYP BD OVER 3 5/8" MTL STUD FILLED WITH BATT INSULATION9600 54TH AVE NORTH, SUITE 180 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442(763) 541-9552 FAX: (763) 541- 9857 www.vanmanab.comCOPYRIGHTCISSUE DATE: 2019SIGNATURE:#DATEDESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTADATE: REGISTRATION #46297PRINT NAME: Angie Knodel3-22-19ENLARGED PLANS &DETAILSA-401Good ShepherdCatholic Church145 Jersey Avenue SouthGolden Valley, MinnesotaInterior Remodel For:SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4012MUSIC - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4013MUSIC - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4014MUSIC - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4015MUSIC - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4011ENLARGED MUSIC ROOM PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4016ENLARGED PRESCHOOL ROOMSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4017PRESCHOOL - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4018PRESCHOOL - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-4019PRESCHOOL - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-40110PRESCHOOL - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"A-40111HM DOOR JAMB @ DOOR 104SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A-40112HM DOOR HEAD AT DOOR 108SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A-40113HM JAMB AT DOOR 108NORTHNORTH