pc-minutes-mar-08-21
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.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Baker, to approve the
agenda of March 8, 2021. 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 February 22, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Pockl, to approve minutes.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Major PUD Amendment to Carousel Automobiles PUD 95
Address: 9191, 9393, 9595 Wayzata Blvd
Applicant: Carousel Motor Group
Myles Campbell, Planner, introduced the topic and told the Commissioners that this is amendment #4
to PUD no. 95, this PUD was last amended in 2014. This amendment is considered a major PUD
amendment due to the degree of changes and a review from Planning Commission and City Council
are required. Both lots in the PUD are zoned Commercial and there are 9.9 acres between the two.
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Amendment #4 will allow for a number of improvements:
Reintroduces auto sales to the former Porsche building
Expansion of the Audi dealership building
New battery storage building
Reduction in parking setbacks along Wayzata to 10’
Reduction of rear setback on south lot from 50’ to 10’
Expansion of south lot parking, requiring relocation of storm water retention pond
Addition of second curb cut off south lot to allow truck traffic
While discussing the items and history of the lot, a map was displayed to show what surrounds the
location. Campbell gave a history of the PUD and the previous three amendments.
The current location has three principal structures on the north site and there are 590 parking spaces,
577 were approved during amendment #3. Over both lots, 74.8% of land is considered impervious, but
there is not an upper limit in Commercial Zoning; two storm water ponds currently help to manage
surface water run off on‐site. Majority of the trees are located on the south lot around the existing
storm water pond, the pond on the south lot would need to move as part of the proposal.
The south lot is separated from a residential neighborhood and Westwood Hills Nature Center by an
existing 12’ sound wall.
A required neighborhood meeting was held on Monday 1, 2021. The main concerns expressed were:
1. Expansion of the south parking lot requiring the removal of trees that provide additional
screening with the sound wall
2. Introduction of trucks unloading on the south lot would have increased noise impacts on the
residential neighborhood
3. Concerns about modification to the stormwater pond creating runoff issues for surrounding
properties
Proposals – North Lot
An expansion of the existing Audi dealership building within the PUD by 5,650 sq. ft.
New 260 sq. ft. accessory building on the northern lot for the storage of Electric Vehicle Batteries.
Both additions require additional review at permitting for consistency with City’s Architectural
and Material Standards
Re‐use the former Porsche Dealership for new Ferrari location
Reduction in the parking setback from Wayzata Boulevard across the site to 10’
Proposal includes pervious pavers within new display areas, as well as some enhanced
landscaping along Wayzata Blvd
Additional Items
Parking lot reconfiguration
New landscaping added along Wayzata Boulevard to mitigate decrease in parking setback
Sculptures added near drive entrances to the site
Updated LED lighting across the site would respond to the City’s “dark skies” requirements
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Staff Evaluation of North Lot
Battery Building
Closer to property line to the west than any principal structure, which requires some
flexibility from code
Exterior Materials must match existing Principal Structures
City supports these types of sustainability measures that are in line with 2040 Comp Plan
goals
Audi Addition
Expansion subject to requirements of City’s Arch & Material Standards, additional details
required prior to permitting
No concerns raised by fire department staff on impact to drive lanes/accesses
Would not increase site impervious surface
Landscaped Buffer between property line and parking reduced to 10’ across the north lot
Engineering staff have some concerns about the use of pervious pavers as suggested in the
proposal, due to proximity to City’s underground utilities
Ferrari Dealership
At the time of Amendment #3, the former Porsche dealership was maintained for internal
operations, and Carousel noted to staff and PC that a third franchise would not be added
to the property.
Staff is not opposed to reintroducing sales
Staff is not concerned with additional parking required as the site has ample capacity
Proposals – South Lot
Reduction in the existing street setback for parking, similar to the north lot
Reduction in the rear parking setback (south) from 50’ to 10’
Combined parking setback changes would allow for reconfiguration of the parking to allow for
added storage (112 new spaces)
Storm water reconfiguration
Introduction of a second curb cut access for the lot
Additional Items
New storm water pond amenities
New landscaping added along Wayzata Boulevard
Updated LED lighting, similar to the north lot improvements, would respond to the City’s “dark
skies” requirements
Staff Evaluation of North Lot
Reduced Setbacks
o Changes to the setbacks would allow for large expansion of the parking lot
o The 10’ rear setback is significantly less than the original 50’ setback put in place by the
PUD, and is also less than the 25’ required by zoning for a commercial parking area
abutting residential uses
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
4
o The rear setback reduction would also result in the loss of a number of trees identified by
residents to the south as providing screening above the 12’ sound wall
Reconfigured Lot
o Staff is concerned with the introduction of trucks unloading on the south lot
Added impervious surface is significant across the south lot, although accounted for with the new
storm water pond in terms of runoff
The new amenities around the pond raise question of maintenance and ownership, which would
need to be agreed to between the City and the applicant
Staff Evaluation – Additional Items
Lighting
o Improvements to lighting across both sites are a positive change for the site, a significant
investment by the applicant, and a clear public benefit to the proposal
o Some outlying questions from review regarding trespass and curfew hours, staff
recommends a more thorough lighting plan as a condition of approval
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
o These are described as amenities in the application narrative but not detailed on any of
the plan set materials
o Not required under zoning, but fitting with City’s Sustainability goals from the
Comprehensive Plan
o Staff is recommending their inclusion at the three dealerships as a condition of approval
Additional Considerations from City Engineers
The city limits tree plantings on or around underground utilities as shown in some areas of the
plan, this could impact the location and provision of replacement trees along Wayzata Blvd.
Similarly, pervious pavers shown in the plan aren’t allowed within 25’ of public utilities, which
could jeopardize some of their inclusion, and result in additional impervious surface
The proposed landscaping and seating area around the south pond seems like a minor public
benefit to balance against a 5.8% increase in impervious surface and the loss of 67 significant
trees
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a modified version of Amendment #4 to PUD No. 95, allowing for the
proposed changes to the north lot including the Ferrari dealership, Audi expansion, battery building,
and reduced street setbacks, and disallowing all requests relating to the south lot, including the
reduction in street and rear setbacks, the relocation of the storm water pond, and the introduction of
a new curb cut to allow for truck access.
The amendment’s approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans for site revisions to 9191, 9393, and 9595 Wayzata Boulevard, and the associated
lot to the south of Wayzata Boulevard, submitted January 22, 2021, and subsequently
updated to address City comments, shall become a part of this approval.
The applicant shall revise the plans so as to:
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
5
a. Remove the reconfiguration of the south lot, including the relocation of the storm
water pond, the expansion of pavement, and the second curb cut onto Wayzata
Boulevard.
b. Show and label the access gate and trail along the east property line of the south lot.
c. Show and label bicycle parking and vehicle charging stations, as noted below.
2. Applicant shall provide a parking diagram for the north lot that clearly labels parking spaces
reserved for customers and employees associated with all three dealerships separately.
3. Applicant shall provide in their site plan at least 20 bicycle parking spaces, in a location
accessible for employees and customers to the three dealerships.
4. Applicant shall provide electric vehicle charging stations on‐site as part of the PUD
Amendment, to be included in a location accessible to each dealership.
5. Applicant shall provide exterior material details on the accessory battery building for review
and approval prior to applying for a building permit.
6. Applicant shall provide exterior elevations and architectural and material information for the
Audi dealership addition, conforming with the City’s standards, for review and approval prior
to applying for a building permit.
7. Applicant shall provide a revised lighting plan that addresses the outstanding questions
around light trespass on both lots and lighting levels on the south lot, addressing how hours
of illumination and curfew lighting will be handled.
8. Applicant shall adjust their tree and landscape plan as directed by City Engineering staff to
avoid conflicts with underground utilities across the sites.
9. The loading and unloading of trucks delivering vehicles to the dealership shall take place on
the property located north of Wayzata Boulevard and shall not take place on the south lot or
within the public right‐of‐way.
Commissioner Johnson asked if a new dealership was going in and if the requested 200 additional
parking spaces were related to that. Campbell responded that the third dealership will be in the
original Porsche dealership location but was only used internally from 2014. The spaces are primarily
for inventory and vehicles to display.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if there were open concerns with the north lot that the City had not
addressed with the applicant. Staff felt more comfortable with the north lot changes and their
alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The south lot proposed changes will have a greater
impact on surrounding communities. Commissioner Baker asked if the city discussed a modified plan
for the South lot so they can use the space but not disturb the area closest to the neighborhood.
Campbell responded that modifications had not been discussed by staff but those may be suggested
by the Planning Commission.
Staff and Commissioners discussed particulars around stacked cars, setbacks, and pervious/impervious
surface area.
The Chair invited the applicant to present.
Applicant, Nguyen Hoang, addressed some of the Commissioners early questions regarding a battery
building. He discussed the parking space details and said they will be released before City Council.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
6
Regarding the electrical concerns, the applicant is still working with their contractor. Some of the
specifics are due to regulations with the previous PUD. The dealership needs more parking space to
accommodate greater inventory on site. The applicant added that the south lot was originally a more
private lot per the PUD and they intend to honor that moving forward. The applicant continued to
discuss the stormwater pond plans and setback requests. The applicant added that the 12ft. sound
wall is partially on the dealership’s property and offers a clear separation from the residential area.
The applicant is requesting removal of trees along the wall and asking they are replanted. To mitigate
noise, the applicant would like to lock the south lot so transport of cars can occur after hours. The
applicant added that while it may not show up now, they are constantly reimagining how to improve
the process.
Wayne Pisinski, Applicant, added that he went to the neighbors of the south lot and made a
commitment o put trees in specific areas to mitigate the sight line concerns they had. He also said he
would work with a landscape company to install ornamental trees to help with the same concerns.
There will be a secondary fence developed between the lot and Wayzata Blvd to help with this issue.
Pisinski also looked into a neighbor’s concern over a wetland area being connected to the dealership’s
retention pond. Both Golden Valley and St Louis Park looked into it and SLP contacted the resident to
assure them the retention pond and wetland area are not related. Pisinski elaborated on the need for
a building for batteries and explained the size and safety needs of that lead to a new building
construction.
Johnson asked if applicants addressed parking stacked cars at the north lot, Pisinski stated they cannot
so the driveway is accessible for firetrucks. Additionally, that location is close to the highway and the
dealership experiences cars that run off the highway and on to their property about 5‐8 times a year.
Campbell added there is minimal greenspace available on the north property line of the north lot and
not enough room for additional stacking. Commissioner Brookins stated that the north retention pond
seems to be expanding, the applicant responded that the pond is being increased and improved on to
increase treatment with the MPCA.
Commissioners and the applicant discussed charging stations on site and public access.
Baker asked the applicant what other inventory options there are and the applicant listed a number of
lots outside of Golden Valley for inventory but finding a place to lease and safely leave a vehicle is hard
to find. It’s hard to meet the customer need with what parking the dealership has available today.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:31pm.
John Thompson
9430 West 14th Street, St Louis Park
I wish the trees on the other side of the retaining wall to remain as a barrier for my home. I live a block
north but my walk out deck is above the 12‐foot barrier and the trees help block the sound in the
summer.
Elizabeth
1511 Flag Ave S St Louis Park
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
7
My house is 3 houses rom the barrier wall and I look over the wall. I can see the buildings on the
dealership lot. Pesinski has met with me and said he would do his best to maintain the mature trees
on the south wall but I was alarmed to see 67/73 trees may be cut down. I would like alternatives to
be explored.
Michael Miller
9416 W 14th Street St Louis Park
My back deck faces the south wall and there is light pollution that escapes over the wall. I’m not sure
what alternative will occur to make up for the removal of the retention pond. I spoke to Eric in St Louis
Park and he said there is probably no connection between the wetlands and retaining pond but he
didn’t say definitely. I wanted to clarify that comment.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a preference for above or below ground stormwater
management. Staff responded that either are acceptable as long as they meet requirements but the
City’s preference is above ground as it’s more environmentally friendly and provides habitat. Blum
asked if there is a standard for mitigation to prevent standing water. Staff is not aware of any.
Laurie Kirk
1301 Flag Ave St Louis Park
My home is adjacent to the SE corner of the wall and the trees along the south wall provide a great
deal of screening from the dealership. The new frontage they’re proposing would be better however
right now the trees keep the aesthetics of the neighborhood. It doesn’t feel industrial or commercial
even though I can see the dealership from our window. The trees on our side of the wall are City of
Golden Valley trees because they are in the easement. There was storm damage and Xcel cut them
because of that. I am concerned that the 10ft setback will create a situation where trees can’t be
planted there at all, we will then lose the ambiance of our neighborhood.
Commissioners discussed the north lot first. Staff wasn’t concerned with reduced sight lines on the
north lot since there’s a wide city boulevard. The discussion continued that there haven’t been many
concerns with the north lot historically as it’s a commercial area. While the reduction in green space is
disappointing, the ask here doesn’t seem to be out of line with what other dealerships have/were
granted. Johnson reiterated that a PUD is a compromise between the City and the business, and he is
concerned with the setback reductions as they were placed there initially for a reason. He continued
with wanting to see what other options there are to maximize the north lot as the original intent of
the PUD seems to be altered. Commissioner Pockl added that the increase of impervious surface is
concerning. The conversation continued on to approving the whole amendment or broken up into two
sections by the north or south lot. This discussion continued on to what to recommend to City Council
and how the PUD amendment should be approved or denied.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:55pm.
Commissioners continued on and discussed the retention pond location and alternatives at greater
length. The discussion moved on and elaborated on staff’s decision to generally support the PUD
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
8
amendment and the regulations to support those decisions. Commissioners discussed whether or not
they support the 10‐foot setback, Johnson doesn’t while Segelbaum, Baker, and Pockl all expressed
support.
A number of residents have decks above the 12‐ft wall due to the topography and Baker commented
the wall barely screens them. Discussions around lighting continued as well as specifics stated in a
previous PUD amendment.
Commissioners moved on to discuss the south lot and stated sensitivity to the proposed removal of
the mature trees. Staff reviewed the easements, property lines, and the wall to illustrates specifics for
Commissioners. This moved on to illustrate parking locations and the 10foot easement, the potential
for increasing charging stations, public art, dropping lighting so neighbors aren’t affected by light
pollution, and the impact of loading/unloading vehicles just on the other side of the wall.
Commissioner Brookins said if the setback can stay at 50ft, he is supportive of the rest of the
amendment, and maybe add additional conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated the irony of cutting
down trees to then sell electric cars.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to follow staff
recommendation and conditions as stated.
Staff called a roll call vote:
Aye: Baker, Brookins, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Johnson, Blum
The motion carries.
5. Discussion – Interim Use
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager reminded the group about a restaurant last summer who was
searching for solutions to meet their need for outdoor seating. In this particular situation,
restaurant/bar is a non‐conforming use in an R‐1 zoning district. Expansion of non‐conforming uses are
not allowed, so no outdoor seating/dining can currently be added. City Council is wary of rezoning so
requested investigation of other options; one of those possibilities is Interim Use.
Interim Use
Covered in State statute
“temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or
until zoning regulations no longer permit it”
Must conform to the zoning regulations
Conditions of use may be attached
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
9
Currently, Golden Valley doesn’t have Interim Use in the zoning code but it does have three types of
temporary uses that are allowed: mobile food vending, seasonal farm produce sales, temporary retail
sales. Each use does require a permit from the City in order to operate.
If outdoor seating was considered as an interim use, it would need to be distinguished in the R‐1 zoning
code, an end date would need to be identified, and conditions could be applied to mitigate potential
impacts.
Typically, interim uses are complementary to the underlying zoning and permitted uses. A commercial
outdoor dining use, appears to be in conflict with R‐1 Zoning.
Interim uses tend to be limited in nature and duration and the investment in a patio is great for a
limited use. Not having an obvious timeline or condition to end, directly contrasts to the nature of
interim/temporary use.
Conditions for approval should be created, as they are in other areas, and this could mitigate potential
impacts to surrounding properties.
Staff Conclusion
An interim use that allows outdoor seating/dining doesn’t seem to be a good solution to the problem
at hand.
The limitation of a commercial use in a single‐family residential area is a big constraint. Staff can look
into what it would mean to have neighborhood commercial zoning district.
Commissioner Pockl asked how staff predicted the proposal would be received by the neighbors since
there seems to be a split response to the restaurant in general. Zimmerman responded that neighbors
are primarily concerned about additional noise, music outside, and an uptick in traffic. The larger
concern from residents regarding rezoning that spot, is the what‐ifs for the future if another business
takes over.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about the difference between this and emergency zoning that
occurred from the Governor’s restrictions at the start of Covid. Zimmerman responded that the
Governor asked Cities to find alternative ways to allow services to operate outdoors and City Council
allowed temporary outdoor service areas. This was a limited time, special circumstance use. Pockl
asked how the restaurant/bar owners are responding to this idea. Zimmerman said interim use was
their idea after seeing how other cities were responding to the need for adaption, they’re willing to do
many things to mitigate potential issues. This doesn’t change that their potential investment is large
nor that a timeline for a temporary use is hard to define. Segelbaum stated he thinks interim use is
worth exploring and tight definitions could help make it appropriate in this situation. Pockl echoed this
statement and stressed that the applicant really needs to understand the cost and potential risks
associated with this kind of use approval. Chair Blum stated that this use regulation seems connected
to the pandemic and a person can’t put a timeline on its end. Being that the use should have a definitive
timeline, he doesn’t feel this solution is the right match. Blum added he’s not against exploring options.
Segelbaum asked if a neighborhood commercial zoning district would add flexibility. Zimmerman said
it could but conditions could be added to decrease extreme by right use.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 8, 2021 – 7 pm
10
No direction is needed.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:42 pm
6. Council Liaison Report
7. Council Member Rosenquist provided a link to the State of the City address and encouraged all
Commissioners to view the recording. She also pointed them to the online recording of an open
house for the Facilities Study. Rosenquist noted that the City had hired a Housing and Economic
Development Manager who would be starting at the end of the month.
8. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None.
9. Other Business
None.
10. Adjournment
11. MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:18 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant